Cannon v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting defendant's expert testimony on an eyewitness's potential for misidentification because extensive corroborating evidence supported the eyewitness testimony in this case.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A DeKalb County jury convicted Johnnie Lee Cannon, Jr. of bus hijacking OCGA § 16-12-123 a 1 A, possession of a firearm during the commission of bus hijacking OCGA § 16-11-106 b 1, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against the bus driver OCGA § 16-5-21 a 2, and possession of firearm during the commission of aggravated assault OCGA § 16-11-106 b 1. Cannon contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict upon the foregoing offenses and in limiting the expert testimony Cannon offered regarding eyewitness identification. Discerning no error, we affirm. “The standard of review for the denial of a motion for directed verdict of acquittal is the same as for determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction.” Citation omitted. Hester v. State , 282 Ga. 239, 240 2 647 SE2d 60 2007.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979, the evidence shows that on May 16, 2008, a Marta bus was stopped at a DeKalb County intersection. The bus was empty except for the driver and one male passenger in the back. The bus driver saw a young woman, who appeared to be agitated, approach the bus door. As bus driver let the woman on the bus, a green Mercury Marquis pulled up beside the bus in the left hand turn lane. Cannon got out of the car and walked to the bus door. Believing that Cannon and the young woman were together, the bus driver opened the door. Rather than getting on the bus, however, Cannon brandished a handgun at bus driver and ordered the woman off. As Cannon drove away with the woman, the bus driver managed to write down the tag number of Cannon’s vehicle.

Cannon v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting defendant's expert testimony on an eyewitness's potential for misidentification because extensive corroborating evidence supported the eyewitness testimony in this case.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report