Martin v. State

The trial court properly admitted similar transaction evidence showing that the defendant was involved in a prior robbery, since the prior robbery was similar enough to the facts of the current case and was introduced to show the defendant's intent and course of conduct.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Carlos Martin appeals his conviction of armed robbery1 and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime,2 contending that 1 the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, 2 the trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury on grave suspicion, and 3 similar transaction evidence was erroneously admitted. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Construed in favor of the verdict,3 the evidence at trial shows that in September 2008, a Dairy Queen employee noticed an unfamiliar car sitting in the parking lot with its lights on for approximately three hours before she left at 10:00 p.m. closing. Another employee, the assistant manager, was closing for the night, and he was preparing to make the bank deposit of the cash receipts. As he locked the door of the restaurant, two men with faces concealed by clothing ran toward him and ordered him to “give it up”; both of the men were armed with handguns. The manager dropped the bank deposit bag, one gunman picked it up, and then both gunmen fled to the parked car. A second Dairy Queen employee, Catlin Tierce, who was getting a ride home from the manager, was already outside when the robbery happened. Tierce saw both robbers, one with a white cloth concealing his face and one with a black cloth concealing his face, run to the nearby car and get in the front and back passenger-side doors. The car, which already had its brake lights on as the robbers approached, quickly sped away. Tierce called 911, reported the robbery, and described the car.

Martin v. State

The trial court properly admitted similar transaction evidence showing that the defendant was involved in a prior robbery, since the prior robbery was similar enough to the facts of the current case and was introduced to show the defendant's intent and course of conduct.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report