Williams v. State
2017 Ark. App. 198
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- On Oct. 22, 2014, a woman was shot and identified her assailants as "Zach" and "Demo." Police knew "Demo" to be Dameion Williams.\
- Detective Barker showed the hospitalized victim a single photograph of Williams the next day to confirm whether the "Demo" she named was Dameion Williams; the victim identified the photo.\
- Williams was charged with aggravated robbery, first-degree attempted murder, and first-degree battery; he moved to suppress the out-of-court photo identification.\
- Williams also moved to subpoena his codefendant, Zach Stokes, and sought a jury instruction permitting a negative inference from a missing video; the court denied forcing Stokes to testify and declined the instruction (no ruling preserved).\
- At trial the victim identified Williams in-court; the jury convicted Williams on all counts and the court imposed concurrent sentences totaling 420 months. Williams appealed, raising suppression, compulsion of codefendant testimony, and the missing-video instruction.\
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of pretrial single-photo ID | The single-photo showing was impermissibly suggestive and the resulting ID was unreliable | The officer showed the photo only to confirm the identity of a named suspect; the victim had prior opportunity to identify and reliably did so | Denied: not unduly suggestive; even if suggestive, reliability factors supported admission |
| Forcing codefendant to testify | Stokes should be compelled because proposed limited questioning would not invoke Fifth Amendment protection | Stokes invoked Fifth Amendment; subpoena was improper to force testimony | Denied: court correctly refused to compel testimony; Williams offered no controlling authority for his narrow-questioning theory |
| Jury instruction re: missing video | Jury should be instructed it may draw an adverse inference from the absence of a video that the State failed to produce | State argued no ruling was obtained below and no instruction was proffered; issue not preserved | Denied (on appeal): issue not preserved—no final ruling and no proposed instruction was submitted |
| Sufficiency of evidence (implicit) | Not challenged on appeal | N/A | Affirmed convictions; sufficiency of evidence was not contested on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. State, 839 S.W.2d 173 (1992) (standard for reviewing identification admissibility and burden to show suggestiveness)
- Fields v. State, 76 S.W.3d 868 (2002) (pretrial identification must be shown to be suspect by defendant)
- Smith v. State, 467 S.W.3d 750 (2015) (totality of circumstances and reliability factors govern admissibility of identifications)
- Williams v. State, 435 S.W.3d 483 (2014) (reliability as linchpin for identification testimony)
- Mason v. State, 430 S.W.3d 759 (2013) (credibility of eyewitness ID is for the factfinder)