Bobby Hamilton v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 399th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 4th District Court of Appeals » 2008 » Bobby Hamilton v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 399th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

State: Texas

Court: Criminal Court of Appeals

Docket No: 04-06-00886-CR

Case Date: 04/30/2008

Plaintiff: Bobby Hamilton

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 399th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

Preview:Bobby Hamilton v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
399th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-06-00886-CR
Bobby HAMILTON,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2006-CR-3602-A
Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 30, 2008
AFFIRMED
A jury found defendant, Bobby Hamilton, guilty of aggravated robbery, and the trial court assessed punishment at
twenty-two years' confinement, plus a $2,000 fine. In one issue on appeal, defendant asserts the trial court erred in
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/21077.html[8/20/2013 8:04:22 PM]

denying his motion to suppress evidence of an out-of-court "show-up" identification. Finding no error, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
At approximately 11:00 p.m. on May 19, 2005, the complainant, Ms. Christopher Hodge, was walking from a Wal-
Mart store to her car. Ms. Hodge was using a walking cane with her left hand, while carrying her purchase and her
wallet in her right hand. As she was walking, she heard a screeching noise and saw a white minivan coming toward
her. She noticed the van's driver was an African-American woman, wearing a pink hat, and the passenger was a young
African-American male. The man got out of the van and tried to grab Ms. Hodge's cane, causing her to fall. The man
took Ms. Hodge's wallet and got back into the minivan, which then drove away.
San Antonio Police Officer John McGibbons was dispatched to the Wal-Mart, where he spoke with Ms. Hodge.
McGibbons then took Ms. Hodge to the parking lot of an elementary school where a white minivan was located. While
Ms. Hodges remained seated in the patrol car, police officers brought a woman to a lighted area for Ms. Hodge to
view. Ms. Hodge identified the woman as the driver of the minivan. McGibbons then drove Ms. Hodge to a house
where numerous suspects were located. Again, while seated in the patrol car, police officers put a spotlight on two of
the suspects, one man at a time. Ms. Hodge positively identified one of the two men as the man who robbed her at the
Wal-Mart, and, at trial, she again identified defendant as this man. On appeal, defendant challenges the trial court's
refusal to suppress evidence of this "show-up" identification.DISCUSSION
We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence for an abuse of discretion. Balentine v. State, 71
S.W.3d 763, 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). We will afford almost total deference to a trial court's determination of
historical facts. Id. When, as here, the trial court does not make explicit findings of historical facts, we will review the
evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and assume the trial court made implicit findings of fact as
supported by the record. Id.
Suggestive out-of-court identifications are disapproved because they risk violating a defendant's due-process rights by
increasing the likelihood that the defendant will be misidentified. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 198 (1972). An out-
of-court identification procedure may be so suggestive and conducive to mistaken identification that subsequent use of
the identification at trial would deny the accused due process of law. Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 200 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2001). To determine whether evidence of an out-of-court identification is admissible, this court must go through
a two-step analysis. First, we determine whether the out-of-court identification procedure was impermissibly
suggestive. Id. Second, if we determine the procedure was impermissibly suggestive, we next determine whether the
procedure gave rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Id. "An analysis under these steps
requires an examination of the 'totality of the circumstances' surrounding the particular case and a determination of the
reliability of the identification." Id. Defendant must prove these two elements by clear and convincing evidence. Barley
v. State, 906 S.W.2d 27, 33-34 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).
On appeal, defendant asserts the show-up procedure used by the police was impermissibly suggestive because (1)
McGibbons made contact with Ms. Hodge soon after the incident and transported her to a location for the purpose of
identifying suspects; (2) during the ride to the location, McGibbons told Ms. Hodge he was taking her to a location
where "[he] might have suspects involved in the crime," and he "wanted her to make a positive I.D. whether or not
these people were involved"; and (3) Ms. Hodge testified McGibbons told her they were going "to the area where
[they] located the individuals." According to defendant, McGibbons' statements that he "might have suspects involved
in the crime," and they were going "to the area where [they] located the individuals" suggested the individuals in
custody were in fact the same individuals who robbed Ms. Hodge.
Defendant also points to the fact that, when defendant was shown to Ms. Hodge, he was removed from a patrol car,
only partially clothed and handcuffed. Defendant argues these circumstances "clearly suggested that [defendant] had
been arrested as the person who had robbed Ms. Hodge." Finally, defendant contends the officers informed Ms. Hodge
that they had a suspect at the house and that her wallet had been recovered from the same house outside of which
defendant's identification occurred.
Here, the record does not support defendant's contentions. Ms. Hodge was asked by defense counsel whether
McGibbons told her, "'We found some individuals,' or, 'We found the individuals who robbed you'?" [Emphasis
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/21077.html[8/20/2013 8:04:22 PM]

added.] Ms. Hodge stated, "I'm pretty sure he said 'some individuals.'" [Emphasis added.] McGibbons testified he
explained to Ms. Hodge that he was "taking her to a location where we might have suspects involved in the crime and
we wanted her to make a positive I.D. whether or not these people were involved." [Emphasis added.] Ms. Hodge
denied the police suggested to her that they had the people who robbed her. She stated, "I remember them saying
something to the effect, 'We are going to be bringing you people to look at, and if you can identify them, please,' you
know, like that."
As for the manner in which defendant was presented to her, Ms. Hodge said she saw "the various males together
[outside the house], and I was able to see who attacked me, you know. That's all I was focused on." She thought she
was shown three men, while McGibbons stated she was shown only two. The two men who were shown to her were
rotated so she could see each side of their face. She did not recognize one of the men, but immediately recognized the
other man as her attacker. When asked about defendant being handcuffed, Ms. Hodge stated she did not remember
handcuffs. She said she "wasn't focused on that. I was sitting in the car. I'm looking at the individual that attacked me
right after - - shortly after this person attacked me. I'm not focused on who has got handcuffs on or not."
When asked what it was about defendant that caused her to identify him, Ms. Hodge responded,
Because we were struggling. I'm staring in this young man's eyes thinking how young he is. I have young - - well, my
sons are not real young, but I remember my sons getting in trouble when they were young, and I could see the fear in
his eyes. I could see him still struggling for the cane, and I'm struggling because I don't want to fall, and I think that
shocked him that I was not letting go of that cane.
Based on our review of the record, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the out-of-
court identification procedure used here was not impermissibly suggestive.
CONCLUSION
We conclude defendant did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the out-of-court show-up identification
procedure used here was impermissibly suggestive. Therefore, we do not address whether the procedure gave rise to a
very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Accordingly, we overrule defendant's issue on appeal and
affirm the trial court's judgment.
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/21077.html[8/20/2013 8:04:22 PM]

Download 21077.pdf