State v. Turner
267 So. 3d 1202 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for armed robbery can be supported by the positive and reliable identification of a single eyewitness, even in the absence of corroborating physical evidence, so long as the state negates any reasonable probability of misidentification.
Facts:
- On August 12, 2016, Blanton Burgess was working as a Domino's Pizza delivery driver in Monroe, Louisiana.
- Burgess went to a Motel 6 to deliver six pizzas to a room but received no answer when he knocked.
- After calling the customer's number, Burgess was met on the motel's second-floor walkway by an African-American man.
- The man produced a revolver, pointed it at Burgess, and robbed him of the pizzas, his cell phone, and $15 in cash.
- The next day, August 13, 2016, Ollandis Derrell Turner sold Burgess's stolen cell phone at an ecoATM kiosk.
- During the transaction, the kiosk photographed Turner and scanned his Louisiana photo identification card.
- Police used the phone's serial number to link the sale to Turner and subsequently showed Burgess a six-person photo lineup.
- Burgess identified Turner from the photo lineup as the individual who robbed him.
Procedural Posture:
- Ollandis Derrell Turner was charged with one count of armed robbery in a Louisiana trial court.
- On June 15, 2017, a jury found Turner guilty as charged.
- The trial court sentenced Turner to serve 60 years at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
- After failing to file a timely appeal, Turner filed a pro se application for post-conviction relief seeking an out-of-time appeal, which the trial court granted.
- Turner, represented by counsel and also filing his own pro se brief, now appeals his conviction to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence, primarily consisting of a single eyewitness's identification, sufficient to support a conviction for armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt when the defendant argues the identification procedure was suggestive and unreliable?
Opinions:
Majority - Garrett, J.
Yes, the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. A conviction for armed robbery can be upheld based on the positive identification of a single witness if that identification is reliable under the totality of the circumstances. Here, the eyewitness identification was reliable because the victim, Burgess, had a clear opportunity to view the robber from two to three feet away in a sufficiently lit area. Furthermore, Burgess demonstrated a high degree of certainty, identifying Turner from a photo lineup in 'not even two seconds' just two and a half weeks after the crime. The court found that the lineup itself was not unduly suggestive, as all individuals depicted had similar physical characteristics. The court dismissed the significance of Burgess's failure to mention the perpetrator's small facial tattoos, noting they were not prominent on a dark complexion and that Burgess was focused on surviving the encounter. Finally, strong circumstantial evidence corroborated the identification: Turner was in possession of and sold the victim's stolen cell phone the day after the robbery.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the significant weight given to a single, reliable eyewitness identification in criminal convictions. It demonstrates the judicial application of the Manson v. Brathwaite factors to validate an identification, even when challenged as suggestive or when minor discrepancies exist in the witness's description. The decision highlights that strong circumstantial evidence, such as possession of stolen property, can bolster an eyewitness account and overcome the lack of direct physical evidence like DNA or fingerprints from the crime scene. This precedent affirms that appellate courts will grant great deference to a jury's credibility assessments, making it difficult to overturn convictions based on sufficiency of evidence claims where a credible eyewitness has identified the defendant.
