Jеremiah Maurice Bills was convicted of robbery, false imprisonment (three counts), simple battery as a lesser included offense of aggravated assault, and theft by taking. He was sentenced to an aggregate tоtal of 25 years to serve 15 years. On appeal from the order denying his motion for a new trial, Bills asserts that the evidence does not support the verdict; that the trial court erred in denying his motion to exclude photographic lineups from the evidence; and that the court erred in overruling his objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument. We affirm.
1. Bills challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions of robbery, false imprisonment, and theft by taking. “In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, this court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. The presumption of innocence no longer applies, and we do not weigh evidence or determine witness credibility.”
So viewed, the evidence shows that on the morning the crimes took place, the victim was home on maternity leave with her six-week-old twin boys. She lived with her boyfriend, Michael Ingram, who was at work. While the babies were asleep on her bed, she gathered her laundry to put in her car. When the victim opened her apartment door, she saw a gloved hand. Immediately, she put her fоot against the door to try and keep the perpetrator out. Three African-American males then pushed her door open. According to the victim, Bills pushed her against a wall and ordered her to walk back to her bedroom. He threatened to kill her and hurt her babies unless she cooperated. Bills did not attempt to obscure his face.
Bills carried a long butcher knife throughout the ordeal. At one point, the twins woke up, and the smaller one started crying. As the victim held him in her arms, Bills told her to “[g]et that baby to shut up,” and he reached over, put his hand on the baby’s chest, and shook him. The baby started crying harder, and the perpetrators finally allowed the victim to give the baby a bottle. The perpetrators stayed for an hour, eventually taking a diamond ring, a diamond tennis bracelet, an ATM card, medicine that had been prescribed for the victim following her C-section, and her 1999 BMW. They had found the car keys in the apartment and demanded to know where the car was parked. Before the perpetrators left, they tied the victim’s hands and feet together with wire. She managed to free herself sufficiently to call 911 and her boyfriend.
The victim was still bound by electrical cord when Detective Tim Ashley arrived at
Ashley put together a photographic lineup, including Bills, and arranged for the victim to come to the police station to view it. The lineup was lying on Ashley’s desk, and the victim was seated across from the desk. As soon as the victim saw the lineup, she grabbed her chest and began to hyperventilate. When she calmed down enough to communicate verbally, she picked Bills’ photograph from the lineup and identified him as the first man who had entered her apartment on the previous day.
Shepherd, who had a brief romantic relationship with Bills, testified that the victim’s boyfriend, Ingram, was her best friend аnd that she had bragged to Bills about Ingram’s financial success. According to Shepherd, Bills asked her to take him to Ingram to rob him. Shepherd did not take Bills seriously.
(a) “A person commits the offense of robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another . . . [b]y intimidation.”
(b) “A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such pеrson without legal authority.”
(c) “A person commits the offense of theft by taking when he unlawfully takes . . . any рroperty of another with the intention of depriving him of the property.”
2. Bills argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress two photographic lineups. We disagree.
Testimony concerning a pre-trial identification of a defendant is inadmissible if the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive and, under the totality of the circumstances, the suggestiveness gave rise to a substаntial likelihood of misidentification. . . . An identification procedure is deemed impermissibly suggestive when it is the equivalent of the authorities telling the witness “This is our suspect.”13
In reviewing the denial of a motion to exclude a photographic lineup, “we construe the evidence most favorably to upholding the court’s findings and judgment, and accept the court’s ruling unless clearly erroneous.”
Bills contended that the identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive because his afro was higher than that of the other five men used in the lineup, and another man possibly appeared Hispanic, rather than African-American. Bills also objected that the viсtim was shown a second lineup shortly after the first one in an attempt to identify a second perpetrator, and the second lineup included four of the six photographs that were included in the first one, including Bills’ phоtograph. In denying the motion, the trial court found that the immediacy and forcefulness of the victim’s identification of Bills in the first lineup overcame any infirmities with regard to the fact that she viewed a second lineup containing his photograph. We agree. Moreover, the record shows such significant similarities among the six photographs utilized in the first lineup that it cannot be said that the trial court erred in rejecting the claim that the рrocedure was impermissibly suggestive.
3. In his final enumeration of error, Bills argues that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument. The prosecutor stated to the jury, “If you’re going to let Jeremiah Bills walk, it follows it is necessary, factually and logically, that the only way you can do it is to affirmatively decide that [the victim] is a conspirator in the matter.” The defense objected, contending that the рrosecutor’s argument was “not a true recitation of the facts.” The court initially sustained the objection, ruling that the argument “foreclose [d] the province of the jury.” The court, however, reversed its ruling and permittеd the prosecutor to continue. Upon resuming his argument, the prosecutor clarified to the jury that he was “only endeavoring to argue to you what inferences that you should draw from the facts____[Y]ou are the ultimatе judge of the law and the facts [,] [a]nd anything
On appeal, Bills argues that the prosecutor’s argument violated the “longstanding rule . .. that counsel may not state to the jury his or her personal belief about the veracity of a witness.”
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
(Citation, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Feldman v. State,
Tucker v. State,
OCGA§ 16-8-40 (a) (2).
(Citation omitted.) Garrison v. State,
Acey v. State,
Jackson v. Virginia,
OCGA§ 16-5-41 (a).
(Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Grier v. State,
See Feldman, supra.
Jackson v. Virginia, supra.
OCGA § 16-8-2.
(Citations, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Garrett v. State,
(Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Standfill v. State,
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Sheris v. State,
See Standfill, supra.
(Footnote omitted.) Bolden v. State,
(Footnote omitted.) Miller v. State,