Redding v. State

The lighter background in the defendant's photograph as compared to the rest of the photographs in the photographic lineup, without more, did not render the lineup impermissibly suggestive.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Carlos Redding was tried by a Fulton County jury and convicted of murder, as well as two crimes involving the unlawful possession of a firearm, all in connection with the fatal shooting of Nelson Mann. Redding appeals, contending that the trial court erred when it failed to properly respond to a question from the jury, when it limited his cross-examination of a prosecution witness, and when it denied his motion to suppress evidence of certain out-of-court identifications. Upon our review of the record and briefs, we see no error, and we affirm.1

1. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that Redding’s cousin Crystal previously had been in a relationship with Mann and that, according to Crystal and Redding’s sister, Mann had fought with and struck both of them just a week before the shooting. Late on the morning of April 29, 2010, Crystal, Redding, and two of his friends were walking when they saw Mann and some of his friends. Crystal pointed at Mann, and Redding then took out a gun and fired multiple shots at Mann. Mann sustained two gunshot wounds, and he died as a result. Redding fled from the scene of the shooting, and after his arrest, he admitted to having been present at the shooting, but insisted that one of his friends was the shooter. Several eyewitnesses, however, identified Redding as the shooter, and no evidence was presented to show that the friend named by Redding had any motive to shoot Mann. Redding does not dispute that the evidence is sufficient to sustain his convictions, but we nevertheless have independently reviewed the record with an eye toward the legal sufficiency of the evidence. We conclude that the evidence adduced at trial was legally sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Redding was guilty of the crimes of which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 III B 99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.

Redding v. State

The lighter background in the defendant's photograph as compared to the rest of the photographs in the photographic lineup, without more, did not render the lineup impermissibly suggestive.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report