Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

985 S.W.2d 693

Craig v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided February 18, 1999

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 1999-02-18

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 2012

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Given the absence of any official action contributing to the likelihood of misiden-tification in this case [from seeing the defendant’s photo in .a newspaper article about his arrest], the constitutional sanction of inadmissibility should not be ap plied, regardless of the extent to which any witness’s in-court identification might have been rendered less reliable by prior exposure to the newspaper photograph. Of course, witnesses who viewed it might have been inclined to identify appellant from the photo and not from a clear recollection of the live events seen by them several days earlier, as was indeed the case with one witness. But the six other witnesses here in question were, so far as the record reflects, not affected in their ability to make an accurate identification of appellant by the challenged newspaper photograph. Since the police procedure was not itself suggestive, the fact that several eyewitnesses were exposed to a media photo of appellant one day before attending a police lineup might, at most, be taken to affect the weight, although not the admissibility, of their trial testimony.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including William Gilmore v. State

Relies on Rogers v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-02-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION

TAFT, J.

¶2A jury found appellant, David Glenn Craig, guilty of aggravated sexual assault. Although the indictment contained enhancement paragraphs for prior convictions, one for grand larceny and another for aggravated sexual assault, the trial court found true only the prior conviction for aggravated sexual assault, and sentenced appellant to life in prison. We address: (1) whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury to disregard testimony after the trial court sustained an objection to a question that called for an inadmissible response; (2) whether a Crime Stoppers’ presentation of appellant’s photo on television constituted an unduly suggestive pretrial identification pro*694cedure; and (3) whether the evidence establishing appellant’s identification was legally and factually sufficient. We affirm.

¶3Facts

¶4C.L. drove her minivan to a service station to buy a drink. Her seven-month-old daughter was in the rear seat. When C.L. returned to her minivan, appellant entered suddenly through the driver-side door. Appellant drove the minivan into a carwash stall behind the service station. He threatened C.L. with a knife and sexually assaulted her. He threatened to retaliate if she told anyone.

¶5Several months latter, C.L. was watching the Crime Stoppers’ portion of the televised evening news. The report was about appellant. When C.L. saw appellant’s face, she was reduced to tears and became ill and vomited. The next day, C.L. phoned Crime Stoppers and reported the sexual assault.

¶6In-Court Identification

¶7Appellant argues in his second point of error that the trial court erred by denying appellant’s motion to suppress C.L.’s in-court identification of him. Appellant argues it was the product of an unduly suggestive out-of-court identification procedure, namely, C.L.’s viewing appellant’s picture on the Crime Stoppers’ portion of the evening news.

¶8When an accused complains that a pretrial identification was unduly suggestive, but the pretrial identification did not involve police action, “the constitutional sanction of inadmissibility should not be applied.” See Rogers v. State, 774 S.W.2d 247, 260 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). In Rogers, witnesses identified a capital murder suspect from a lineup. Id. at 259. The day before the lineup, the witnesses saw a picture of the suspect in a newspaper. Id.The newspaper picture depicted the suspect’s arrest. Id.At trial, the witnesses identified the accused as the murderer. Id.On appeal, the accused complained that the witnesses viewed the picture depicting his arrest. Id. at 260. The court noted that, as far as it could tell, the photograph was not part of a greater scheme by law enforcement officers to suggest to an otherwise unsuspecting audience that the accused committed the murder. Id.The court held that in the absence of any official action contributing to the likelihood of misidentification, the constitutional sanction of inadmissibility would not be applied, regardless of the extent to which any witness’s in-court identification might have been rendered less reliable by prior exposure to the picture. Id.

¶9In the present case, the record does not reflect that the Crime Stoppers’ Report involved any police action, much less that it was part of a law enforcement scheme to produce a suggestive identification. Therefore, following the rationale of Rogers, we conclude that the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress.

¶10We overrule appellant’s second point of error.

¶11The discussion of the remaining points of error does not meet the criteria for publication, and is thus ordered not published. Tex. R.App.P. 47.4. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

/985/sw2d/693 · .json · Public domain