The Akron Legal News

Court rules in-court identification of robber was not unduly suggestive

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 14, 2014

A three-judge panel in the 4th District Court of Appeals recently rejected a woman’s claims that she was unfairly prejudiced by the identification process in her trial for aggravated robbery.

Brittany Collins appealed her conviction from the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas, which found her guilty of committing a string of robberies in July 2012.

The facts of the case state that the first robbery took place at 56 Mini Mart.

Miriam Brumfield testified she was working at the mini mart when a female, wearing black clothing, a hat and sunglasses entered the store and demanded money from the cash drawer.

Brumfield gave the woman the money. The woman then ordered Brumfield to go into the bathroom and count to 100.

The second robbery took place at the Tarlton Market.

The employee, Cody Smith, testified that a woman walked in wearing all black clothing, a hat and sunglasses, despite it being dark outside.

He said he spoke to the woman across the counter for about five minutes before she showed him a gun in her waistband and demanded money.

Smith gave her money from the cash drawer and she ordered him and another employee to enter the bathroom and lock the door.

Two days later, Darci Leaker was working at 56 Mini Mart when she saw a female enter the store wearing basketball shorts and a tank top.

Leaker noticed the woman’s tattoos, teeth and nails, which were “chewed really short.” The woman then exited the store and left in a silver Chevrolet Cobalt.

Believing the woman was the same who had robbed the store four days earlier, Leaker called the sheriff’s department.

Before a deputy could arrive, however, a man approached Leaker outside and demanded everything out of the cash drawer.

She complied and was ordered into the bathroom. She said the robbery took place within two minutes of the Cobalt leaving.

The investigating detective noted that the person described in the first two robberies wore the same clothes, hat, and sunglasses, had a similar body type and gave similar demands.

The detective contacted local newspapers and crime stoppers and offered a reward for information related to the robberies. An anonymous tip then led to an investigation of Collins.

A search of her home yielded clothing similar to that worn by the robber.

The detective also took photos of Collins tattoos and teeth, which matched the victims’ descriptions.

A hat found in her home was later identified by both Brumfield and Smith as the one worn by the robber.

Collins was then arrested and charged with aggravated robbery, theft, grand theft, complicity to aggravated robbery and complicity to theft.

Both Brumfield and Smith identified her during the trial and the jury found her guilty of all charges. The trial court sentenced her to consecutive sentences for a total of 11 years in prison.

On appeal, Collins argued that the key eyewitnesses identified her using unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures.

The appellate panel held that Collins had to show that the identification procedure was unnecessarily suggestive as well as several other factors.

“The state admits, and we agree, that the first prong of the test is met simply by the nature of the proceeding,” Judge Marie Hoover wrote for the court.

However, the judges also had to consider the witnesses’ opportunity to view the robber, their degree of attention, the accuracy of witnesses’ prior description, the witnesses’ certainty and the time elapsed between the crime and the identification.

While they agreed that the time elapsed weighed in Collins’ favor, the judges found the remaining factors weighed against her.

Specifically, the judges found Brumfield was certain of her identification, accurately described Collins’ chewed fingernails, yellowed teeth, tattoos and clothing and testified that she had plenty of time to observe Brumfield at close range during the robbery.

Similarly, Smith described Collins’ clothing, cheekbones, and skin tone in detail.

The judges found he had ample time during the robbery to view Collins because he had a five minute conversation with her prior to giving her the cash.

“Since we have found no plain error in the identification of Collins by Brumfield or Smith, we overrule Collins’ first assignment of error,” Judge Hoover stated.

Collins next argued that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive prison terms.

The appellate judges upheld that argument after finding that the trial court did not specifically include all of the required phrases and findings in its sentencing error.

They therefore remanded the matter for new sentencing so the trial court could make the required findings.

Presiding Judge Pete Abele and Judge Matthew McFarland concurred.

The case is cited State v. Collins, 2014-Ohio-4224.

[Back]