M. J. S., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A child was charged with burglary based on an in-court identification by the restaurant owner preceded by two suggestive photopak procedures. The appellate court reversed, finding the photopaks were impermissibly suggestive and that the trial court erred in denying the motion to exclude the identification evidence.
The photopaks were impermissibly suggestive because they created a substantial risk of misidentification. The trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to exclude the identification evidence. Once a pretrial identification is found impermissibly suggestive, any in-court identification is presumed tainted, and the State must overcome this presumption by clear and convincing evidence, which the lower court failed to do.
[1] A pretrial identification procedure is impermissibly suggestive when the totality of the circumstances indicates that the identification is unreliable.
[2] A photopak containing only one photograph that vaguely resembles a witness's description creates a substantial risk of misidentification.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Identification procedures become impermissibly suggestive where the totality of the circumstances indicate that the identification resulting from the procedure is unreliable.”
The court's standard for evaluating identification procedures
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCount Phillippe Inn was burglarized on October 27, 1979 and again on October 28, 1979. On October 28, the owner Mr. Everling observed someone fleeing …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tainted In-Court Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
The restaurant Count Phillippe Inn was burglarized on October 27, 1979 and again on the morning of October 28, 1979. Mr. Everling, the owner of the restaurant, while inside the premises on October 28, without lights and before the sun had risen, observed an individual run from the building. He described the person to the police as a “white male, thin build, approximately 5'10" to 5'11", weight unknown, approximately twenty to twenty-two years with shoulder length blond hair.” The police already suspected appellant’s brother as one involved in the burglary on the 27th.
Detective Poe of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Department prepared a photopak consisting of three photographs. One of the photographs was of appellant’s brother who at the time the picture was taken had very short hair. The second photograph depicted another white male also with short hair. The third picture was of appellant and depicted him with shoulder length light-colored hair. Detective Poe testified that the photopak was prepared and presented to Mr. Everling in his investigation of the October 27th burglary. However, he also testified appellant’s picture was included because it more closely resembled the description given by Mr. Everling with respect to the incident on the 28th. Mr. Everling selected the photograph of appellant as the person he believed he saw on the morning of the 28th.
Detective Poe then prepared a second photopak of five photographs. One of those photographs was the same picture of appellant that Everling had earlier identified, however, in this instance, the police had cut out the head of the appellant, enlarged it, and pasted it onto a different background leaving a sort of corona effect around the likeness of appellant. The second photopak was displayed to Everling who again selected the photograph of appellant.
Appellant was charged by amended petition as a delinquent child. He moved to exclude the pretrial and any in-court identification by Mr. Everling on the ground that the photopaks were impermissibly suggestive and any in-court identification would be tainted thereby. The court, after a hearing, denied the motion.
At trial, the State’s sole witness was Mr. Everling who was allowed, over objection, to identify the appellant.
Appellant alleges the trial court’s denial of his motion to exclude the in-court identification was error. We agree and reverse for reasons herein given.
Identification procedures become impermissibly suggestive where the totality of the circumstances indicate that the identification resulting from the procedure is unreliable. State v. Sepulvado, 362 So. 2d 324 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). Baxter v. State, 355 So. 2d 1234 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). The first photopak presented to Mr. Everling consisted of three photographs, only one of which even vaguely resembled the description he had given the police. Such a procedure created a substantial risk of misidentification and was therefore unreliable. The second presentation was, at best, no better, and perhaps worse.
Once a pretrial identification is found to be impermissibly suggestive, it is presumed that any in-court identification will be tainted and the burden shifts to the State to overcome the presumption by clear and convincing evidence. State v. Sepulvado, supra. The lower court erred in finding the pretrial identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive. Accordingly, the appellant’s motion should have been granted and we must reverse and remand for new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Renwick Keel, 557 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…forth in Pettis. We conclude that the record before us fails to demonstrate that the lower court’s ruling constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law. See e.g., Judd v. State, 402 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); M.J.S. v. State, 386 So. 2d 323 [*908] (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). In State v. Pettis, this court stated While some pretrial evidentiary rulings may qualify for certiorari, it must be remembered that the extraordinary writ is reserved for those situations where “there has been a violati…
-
Carroll Lauramore v. State, 422 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…his court for rehearing or certification, alleging that without a written opinion it is impossible to determine the reason for affirmance and whether a conflict has been created with decisions of another district court, specifically M.J.S. v. State, 386 So. 2d 323 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), and State v. Sepulvado, 362 So. 2d 324 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). Under the circumstances, it is appropriate to explicate the reasons for affirming the judgment and sentence. The first issue presented was whether the trial court erred in…1 / 2
-
Milo A. Rose v. State, 472 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 1985)…by denying his motion to suppress, admitting evidence of an impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification, and allowing identification in court tainted by the pretrial identification. In support of his contention, appellant cites M.J.S. v. State, 386 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), and Dell v. State, 309 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), for the proposition that a photographic lineup which contains only one photograph matching the description of the accused is imper-missibly suggestive. However, M.J.S. and Dell…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baxter v. State, 355 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- State v. Sepulvado, 362 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Howe v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., 362 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)