State v. Young

35 So.3d 1042 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Detectives responded to the late-night shooting of two persons Aaron Arnold, was unresponsive with gunshot wounds to his upper body. He never regained consciousness and died from his injuries. Dionne Grayson was lying on the ground with gunshot wounds to her legs. She provided statements to detectives at the scene and hours after her admission to the hospital. She stated a black male brandishing a semiautomatic handgun exited the passenger front seat of a white car and demanded their wallets. Ms. Grayson claimed the individual shot them before they could fully comply with his request. She gave a description of the gunman's physical features. Nancy Segura witnessed the attempted robbery and shootings. She was sitting in a vehicle in close proximity to Grayson's car while waiting for a friend to leave work. She was not noticed by the assailants. There were several witnesses located at a nearby coffee shop who observed the driver and the white vehicle used in the commission of the crime both prior to and after the shootings. A confidential informant provided detectives with information regarding the involvement of Sanchez Brumfield, the getaway driver, and the D's cousin. Segura identified the D from a photographic lineup as the individual who shot Arnold and Grayson. A white vehicle similar to the model described as being involved in the crime was registered to D's home address. D was arrested. Grayson identified the d as the gunman from a photo lineup. D claims he was not involved. D was indicted for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder. P sought the death penalty. D moved to suppress the identifications made by Segura and Grayson. Segura was an illegal immigrant who is now back in Mexico. P was attempting to get her back into the U.S. to testify. Grayson testified that days after her release from the hospital she was shown one or two photographic lineups prior to the one where she identified the defendant as the gunman. D was not depicted in the earlier photographic lineups. Grayson testified that she had not seen any suspects in news coverage before she identified D. The district court denied the motion to suppress her identification because it found no evidence that the procedure was impermissibly suggestive. D filed notice of its intent to introduce expert testimony at trial on factors that might affect the reliability of the State's eyewitness identifications. Dr. Roy S. Malpass, Ph.D., a Texas psychology professor, testified regarding his credentials and education. P conceded that he was an expert in the field of psychology, but urged that the psychology of eyewitness identification is not a discipline recognized in the scientific community. The court accepted the witness as an expert in the science of psychology with a special emphasis in the field of eyewitness identification. Malpass proffered his testimony and the court ruled that he would be permitted to testify at trial. The court of appeal denied P's writ application. P appealed.