Walker v. State, 229 S.E.2d 546 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
Walker v. State, 229 S.E.2d 546 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Ross v. State (gactapp, 1985-01-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ross v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Horton v. State, 163 Ga. App. 809, 810 (1) ( 295 SE2d 554 ) (1982); Brown v. State, 161 Ga. App. 55 (2) (a) ( 289 SE2d 9 ) (1982); Walker v. State, 139 Ga. App. 751, 752 (1) ( 229 SE2d 546 ) (1976). 7.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Richardson v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
Walker v. State, 139 Ga. App. 751, 752 ( 229 SE2d 546 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stone v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
Walker v. State, 139 Ga. App. 751, 752 ( 229 SE2d 546 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Horton v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
Walker v. State, 139 Ga. App. 751, 752 ( 229 SE2d 546 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hamilton v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
Walker v. State, 139 Ga. App. 751, 752 ( 229 SE2d 546 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
In an almost identical factual situation we held: “[I]t (the identification) was an ‘immediate product of the offense and defendant’s apprehension.’ Hence, ‘practicalities inherent in this type of situation suggest that an immediate on-the-scene confrontation between victim and suspect is essential both to law enforcement and to fairness toward innocent suspects.’ [Cit.] ” Walker v. State, 139 Ga. App. 751, 752 (1) ( 229 SE2d 546 ) (1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Harley v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
Walker v. State, 139 Ga. App. 751, 752 ( 229 SE2d 546 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kemp v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
See Bennett v. State, 236 Ga. 313 ( 223 SE2d 693 ); Walker v. State, 139 Ga. App. 751, 752 ( 229 SE2d 546 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bradley v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1979 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Walker v. State, 139 Ga. App. 751 (1) ( 229 SE2d 546 ) (1976) (upholding an on-the-scene showup held five minutes after offense occurred); Lowe v. State, 141 Ga. App. 433 (1) ( 233 SE2d 807 ) (1977) (where a lineup was held at the preliminary hearing); Price v. State, 142 Ga. App. 504 (1) ( 236 SE2d 178 ) (1977) (upholding spontaneous identification of suspect in an office occupied by 8 to 10 people, where witness had no prior knowledge that suspect would be there).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Graham v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1978 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Walker v. State, 139 Ga. App. 751 (1) ( 229 SE2d 546 ).
Walker
v.
the State
52576.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Oct 1, 1976.
229 S.E.2d 546
Robert C. Ray, for appellants., Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, H. Allen Moye, Harvey Moskowitz, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
Quillian, Deen, Webb.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
Quillian, Judge.

The defendant appeals his conviction for burglary. Held:

1. It is contended that the defendant’s identification by two witnesses was impermissibly tainted by an illegal show-up identification.

No objection was interposed in the trial court with regard to the error now urged. Moreover, the showup was not unnecessarily suggestive nor was there a likelihood of[*752] misidentification. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188 (93 SC 375, 34 LE2d 401). The showup was an on the scene confrontation conducted as soon as possible after the offense. It occurred five minutes after the witnesses saw the accused fleeing the scene. As stated in Watson v. State, 349 A2d 738 (1975), it was an "immediate product of the offense and defendant’s apprehension.” Hence, "practicalities inherent in this type of situation suggest that an immediate on-the-scene confrontation between victim and suspect is essential both to law enforcement and to fairness toward innocent suspects.” 349 A2d 740.

Submitted September 13, 1976 Decided October 1, 1976. Robert C. Ray, for appellants. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, H. Allen Moye, Harvey Moskowitz, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

Under the circumstances here, we find that the show-up did not have the effect of nullifying the witnesses’ identification of the defendant. This ground is without merit.

2. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

3. A charge complained of which instructed the jury as to recent possession has, in substance, been approved by both this court and the Supreme Court. McGinty v. State, 134 Ga. App. 399, 403 (214 SE2d 678); Workman v. State, 137 Ga. App. 746, 748 (224 SE2d 757); Aiken v. State, 226 Ga. 840, 844 (178 SE2d 202).

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Webb, J., concur.