Anthony v. State

The trial court did not err in admitting the defendant's custodial statement made after the invocation of his right to counsel, as he spontaneously initiated further conversation with the detective.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial, Joseph Anthony was convicted of hijacking a motor vehicle,1 armed robbery,2 and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.3 Anthony appeals the denial of his motion for new trial, arguing that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence his custodial statement after he invoked his right to counsel.4 We affirm, for the reasons that follow. Viewed in favor of the verdict,5 the record shows that on January 28, 2002, Andrea Howard was at a car wash when Anthony and another man approached her vehicle. Anthony told her to exit the car, lifted up his shirt, and “went for his gun,” which was in the waistband of his pants. Howard complied, and the men left in her car, with Anthony driving and the other man in the passenger seat. Approximately 30 minutes later, Howard’s car was recovered at a nearby park; her cell phone, CDs, house keys, and recent purchases had been removed from the car.

During the subsequent investigation, the police learned that Anthony and another man had entered a Money Back store across the street from the car wash shortly before Howard was robbed, and they had left without making a purchase. A videotape from the Money Back surveillance camera captured images of the two men, and the police obtained still shots from the video to show to people in the area. After a witness identified Anthony as one of the men in the photograph, the police prepared a photo lineup with Anthony’s picture and showed it to the Money Back manager, who identified Anthony as one of the men who had been in the store shortly before the robbery. The carjacking victim, Howard, also positively identified Anthony from a photo lineup, indicating that he was the man with the gun.6

Anthony v. State

The trial court did not err in admitting the defendant's custodial statement made after the invocation of his right to counsel, as he spontaneously initiated further conversation with the detective.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report