Opinion ID: 2553189
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statement About Ingram Identifying Matthews by his Face

Text: In their initial closing, the prosecution stated that after Ingram picked out Matthews in a photo array, he says, I remember him because I got a good look at his face because I gave him a tattoo. Appellant contends this statement presented facts not in evidence because Mr. Ingram never said he recognized Mr. Matthews by his face. He said he recognized him by his eyes. The trial court found the prosecution's statement permissible, stating, there's not much difference between somebody saying they recognize somebody by their face and somebody by their eyes. If we had to parse words like that a trial that's error free would be an impossibility. We agree that the prosecution's statement was supported by the evidence. The statement was supported by Ingram's testimony that he had spent twenty minutes giving Matthews a tattoo on his neck in good lighting, that he was only arms-length from his assailant in a well-lit hallway, and that he recognized the eyes and hair of the man who attacked him. Moreover, when Ingram identified Matthews from a photo array (which contained a photograph of Matthews before he received his tattoo), he said he recognized Matthews by how he looked. From this evidence, it is clearly a reasonable inference that Ingram got a good look at [Matthews's] face because [he] gave him a tattoo. We do not require the kind of exactitude in closing arguments that appellant seeks.