Mack v. State

The victim's in-court identification of defendant did not result from an impermissibly suggestive photographic line-up because the victim directly and closely observed his attacker.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

James Mack, III was convicted of highjacking a motor vehicle, kidnapping, possession of a firearm during the commission of certain crimes, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, theft by bringing stolen property into the state, and armed robbery. Mack appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in i denying his motion to suppress, ii admitting improper character evidence, and iii allowing an in-court identification by the victim following an improper photographic line-up. He also claims ineffective assistance of counsel. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, the defendant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict.1 So viewed, the evidence showed that Robert Webster stayed overnight at a hotel in Cordele. When he was walking to his car the next morning, someone struck him on the head from behind. Threatening him with a gun, his assailant told him to get into his car and then to move over to the passenger’s seat. The man took Webster’s keys and drove his car onto the highway. He told Webster to put his head down between his knees and then to look away from him out the passenger window. Webster turned toward the assailant and noticed that he kept a gun in his lap while driving. The driver pulled the car off the road and ordered Webster out of the car. As Webster began to exit, the man pointed his gun at Webster, so Webster grabbed it, and the two struggled for the weapon. Webster was beaten over the head, but managed to take the gun and throw it out of the car. Webster lost consciousness, and his assailant took his wallet and drove off with his car.

Mack v. State

The victim's in-court identification of defendant did not result from an impermissibly suggestive photographic line-up because the victim directly and closely observed his attacker.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report