FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 35CR-14-258]
HONORABLE ALEX GUYNN, JUDGE AFFIRMED
M. "Robby" Golden, for appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, JUDGE
Daniels appeals his convictions of aggravated robbery and
theft of property. On appeal, Daniels argues that the circuit
court erred by allowing the use of a photo lineup in
violation of Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.1(a)(v)
(2017). We affirm.
4, 2014, the State charged Daniels with aggravated robbery
and theft of property. The charges related to a robbery at
Popeyes restaurant in Pine Bluff on April 30, 2014. The case
proceeded to a jury trial on July 31 and August 1, 2017.
trial, Detective Melvin Cawthon testified that on April 30,
2014, he responded to a call concerning an incident at
Popeyes restaurant. He explained that on his way to Popeyes,
he saw Daniels fleeing the scene. Cawthon held Daniels at
gunpoint and discovered a large amount of money as well as
white gloves on his person. The State introduced a
surveillance video of the incident that showed one of the
suspects wearing white gloves and blue-and-black athletic
Cassandra McAfee testified that she interviewed Daniels on
May 1, 2014, and that he was wearing blue-and-black athletic
shoes. The interview was videotaped and played for the jury
at trial. In the interview, Daniels admitted his involvement
in the Popeyes robbery. Specifically, he stated that he had
acted as a lookout while his accomplices robbed the
restaurant. During the interview, McAfee showed Daniels a
photo lineup of several individuals and asked him whether any
of the individuals were involved in the robbery. The
recording shows that Daniels identified one person in the
photo. McAfee then testified that the person in the photo was
Antonio Bailey, a former employee of Popeyes.
attorney objected to any questions concerning Daniels's
identification of the individual in the photo lineup. He
asserted that he had never seen the photo and that the photo
was not included in the case file. He further stated that he
sent a letter requesting the photo but that the State had
failed to send him a copy. The State responded that a
black-and-white copy of the photo lineup was in the case file
and also informed the court that it did not seek to introduce
the photo into evidence. The court denied Daniels's
objection, finding that Daniels had failed to raise the issue
at the omnibus hearing.
jury convicted Daniels of aggravated robbery and theft of
property. Daniels was sentenced to 120 months'
imprisonment for aggravated robbery and 12 months'
imprisonment for theft of property, to run concurrently.
timely appealed his convictions to this court. On appeal,
Daniels argues that the circuit court erred by allowing the
use of the photo lineup in violation of Arkansas Rule of
Criminal Procedure 17.1(a)(v). Specifically, he argues that
he timely requested a copy of the photo in his October 29,
2014 motion for discovery when he asked the State for
"all books, papers, documents, photographs, or tangible
objects which the Prosecuting Attorney intends to use in any
hearing or at the trial." He asserts that because the
State did not produce the photo, he assumed the photo did not
exist or was not going to be used at trial. He asserts that
the circuit court unfairly placed the burden on him to
discover the photo.
Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.1(a)(v) imposes a duty on the
State to disclose "any books, papers, documents,
photographs or tangible objects, which the prosecuting
attorney intends to use in any hearing or at trial or which
were obtained from or belong to the defendant." In order
to reverse on appeal, an appellant must make a showing of
prejudice in the circuit court's ruling on the discovery
violation. Id. If there is a discovery violation,
the choice of an appropriate sanction is within the circuit
court's discretion. Id. See also Ark. R. Crim.
P. 19.7(a) (permissible sanctions for discovery violations).
On appeal, the key in determining whether a reversible
discovery violation exists is whether the appellant was
prejudiced by the prosecutor's failure to disclose.
Bray v. State, 322 Ark. 178, 908 S.W.2d 88
(1995). This means that the appellant must demonstrate a
reasonable probability that the result would have been
different had the information been disclosed. Cornett v.
State, 2012 Ark.App. 106, 389 S.W.3d 47. These standards
require a showing that the omission was sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial.
case, we hold that Daniels has not established a reversible
error. Daniels offers no argument how he was prejudiced by
the State's alleged failure to disclose the photo lineup.
He claims that he assumed that either the photo did not exist
or it was not going to be used at trial. However, he fails to
demonstrate how the photo would have affected the outcome of
the trial. The issue of Daniels's identifying another
person involved in the robbery by using a photo lineup was
completely tangential to the matter of Daniels's guilt or
innocence. The evidence presented was
overwhelming-particularly due to Daniels's recorded
confession, his apprehension near the scene of the robbery,
and his unexplained ...