A Cherokee County jury found Keith Price guilty of armed robbery and simple battery. Price appeals contending that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain the armed robbery conviction and that the trial сourt erred in admitting the identification evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
1. Price challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his armed robbery conviction.
1
On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict in accordance with the standard set forth in
Jackson v. Virginia,
So viewed, the trial evidence shows that the victim worked at a Speed Emissions inspection station in Cherokee County. On the morning of the armed robbery, the victim heard the station’s motion sensor alert and assumed that a customer had аrrived. The victim was walking toward the door to greet the customer when Price pushed the door open, lifted the front of his shirt, and showed the victim the handle of what appeared to be a black handgun. Priсe demanded that the victim give him money and the victim complied by giving Price $80 cash and $40 in checks.
Price then forced the victim out the door where the victim’s car was parked. Price looked inside the victim’s car for other items to *764 steal, but found none that he wanted. Price took the victim back inside the station, sprayed the victim in the face with pepper spray and fled the scene.
Shortly thereaftеr, the victim called the police. When the police arrived, the victim gave a statement in which he described the perpetrator and the circumstances surrounding the armed robbery. The victim alsо developed a composite sketch of the perpetrator utilizing a computer program.
A few weeks after the armed robbery, two similar armed robberies occurred at emission inspеction stations in Cobb County. In both of these armed robberies, employees were working at emission inspection stations, when a man, later identified as Price, entered the stations, displayed what apрeared to be the handle of a black handgun that was tucked into his pants, demanded money, and then sprayed them with pepper spray. One of the employees saw Price flee in a burgundy Chevy pickup truck.
Price became a suspect in the investigation after his former roommate contacted a Cherokee County officer and reported that Price had used his truck, “a red or maroon Chevy Silverado,” to commit the armed robberies in Cobb County. The roommate overheard Price admitting to another individual that he had committed the armed robbery of an emission inspection center аnd had “made the Marietta News.” The roommate gave police consent to search his truck. During the search, the police discovered a plastic toy handgun. The roommate recognizеd the toy gun as one which he had given to Price as a gift for Price’s son, but Price had painted the gun black. The roommate also furnished police with a can of pepper spray that belonged to Price.
Approximately one month after the incident, the victim returned to the police department to view a photographic lineup. The victim immediately selected Price’s photogrаph from the lineup and stated he had “[n]o doubt” that Price was the person who had robbed him. The victim also identified Price at trial as the perpetrator of the armed robbery.
A separate phоtographic lineup compiled by the Cobb County investigating detective was displayed to the employees in the Cobb County robberies. Both employees immediately selected Price’s photograph as depicting the person who had robbed them. These employees also positively identified Price at trial.
The above cited evidence was sufficient to sustain Price’s armed robbery cоnviction. See OCGA § 16-8-41 (a);
Edwards v. State,
A person commits armed robbery when, with intent to commit theft, he or she takes property of another from the person or the immediate presence of another by use of an offensivе weapon, or any replica, article, or device having the appearance of such weapon. The presence of an offensive weapon or an article having the appearance of one may be established by circumstantial evidence, and a conviction for armed robbery may be sustained even though the weapon or article used was neithеr seen nor accurately described by the victim. What is required is some physical manifestation of a weapon or some evidence from which the presence of a weapon may be infеrred. Furthermore, the test is whether the defendant’s acts created a reasonable apprehension on the part of the victim that an offensive weapon was being used, regardless of whether the victim actually saw the weapon.
(Citation omitted; emphasis supplied.)
Joyner v. State,
The evidence in this case meets this test. The evidence at trial showed that Price lifted his shirt and “showed [the victim] a gun” when he demanded the victim’s money. While it is true that Pricе did not pull the weapon out of his pants, Price’s display of the gun handle was sufficient to create a reasonable apprehension on the part of the victim that Price was using an offensive weapon and to cause him to comply with Price’s demand for money. That the offensive weapon may have ultimately been proven to only be a toy gun is inconsequential. The evidence was sufficient to support the armed robbery conviction. See
Joyner,
2. Price also contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the victim’s photographic lineup identification and the subsequent in-court identification on the grounds that the identifications had been tainted by the allegedly suggestive photographic lineup. We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress by construing the evidence most favorably to upholding the court’s
*766
findings and judgment, and we accept the court’s ruling unless clearly erroneous.
Karim v. State,
On appeal, we will reverse a conviction based on a pretrial рhoto identification if the photographic lineup was so impermissibly suggestive that there exists a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. An identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive only if it leads the witness to an all but inevitable identification of the defendant as the perpetrator, or is the equivalent of the authorities telling the witness, “This is our suspect.”
(Punctuation and footnotes omitted.)
Russell v. State,
Pretermitting whether the lineup was suggestive, the trial court’s finding that there wаs no likelihood of misidentification is supported by the record. 3
In reviewing these identifications, we consider the following factors established by the United States Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers[,409 U. S. 188 (93 SC 375, 34 LE2d 401) (1972)]: (a) the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, (b) the witness’ degree of attention, (c) the accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal, (d) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness аt the confrontation, and (e) the length of time between the crime and the confrontation. The ultimate question is, whether under the totality of the circumstances, the identification is reliable.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.)
Allen v. State,
Evidence аt trial established that the victim had an unrestricted view of Price during the commission of the crime. Price was only one to two feet from the victim during the robbery, the robbery occurred
*767
during the daytime in a well-lit area, and there was nothing distracting the victim from viewing Price’s face. The victim paid particular attention to Price’s facial features during the robbery. Shortly after the robbery, the victim assisted in the preparаtion of a composite sketch using a computer program containing various choices for each feature. Based upon his observations and memory of Price’s facial features, thе victim picked out each separate feature that matched the description of the perpetrator as depicted in the sketch. The composite sketch, which was introduced intо evidence at trial, was very similar to Price’s photo. As such, the victim’s identification of Price as the perpetrator was based upon his independent memory, which the victim fairly accurately reсalled in developing the composite sketch. Because there was an independent basis for the victim’s identifications and there was no substantial likelihood of misidentification under these circumstаnces, the trial court did not err in admitting the identification evidence. See
Baugher v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Price does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the simрle battery conviction.
Compare
Butts v. State,
The six-photographic lineup has been included in the record on appeal. It was less than ideal.