Lamb v. State

OPINION

Charles E. Lamb, convicted of grand larceny,1 contends this court should reverse his conviction because a photographic display was impermissibly suggestive, and because police conducted the photographic display in the absence of counsel.

Lamb argues that the photographic display was suggestive because the photograph of appellant bore a date soon after the crime, whereas the dates on the other photographs were older.2 He claims the date suggested Lamb was the perpetrator. The trial judge considered and rejected his claim. The record supports the trial court’s ruling. The victim testified…