MALCOLM JOHN PHILLIPS, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction where trial court properly excluded expert psychological testimony about photographic lineup suggestiveness, holding juries can assess witness perception without expert aid.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in excluding expert psychological testimony about the suggestiveness of a photographic lineup and misidentification probabilities because juries are capable of assessing witness perception through cross-examination and cautionary instructions.
[1] Expert psychological testimony regarding the suggestiveness of a photographic lineup and probabilities of witness misidentification is not required where juries can asses…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“We hold that a jury is fully capable of assessing a witness' ability to perceive and remember, given the assistance of cross-examination and cautionary instructions, without the aid of expert testimony.”
The court cited Johnson v. State to support excluding expert testimony about lineup suggestiveness and witness identification reliability.
Phillips was identified as the perpetrator by two witnesses who selected his photograph from a photographic lineup prior to trial. The defense sought …
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 Admissibility Of Experimental Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Phillips appeals convictions for attempted burglary of a conveyance with intent to commit assault and false imprisonment. He contends the trial court erred in refusing to allow an expert defense witness to testify about experiments the expert conducted. We disagree and affirm.
Phillips was identified as the perpetrator of the crimes by two witnesses who, prior to trial, had picked his picture from a photographic lineup. At trial, the defense called Hord, a psychologist, to testify as an expert concerning the suggestiveness of the lineup and the probabilities of misidentification under the circumstances in which the lineup was presented. Hord attempted to testify about results of an out-of-court experiment he had performed using a reproduction of the photographic lineup. The trial court refused to allow testimony concerning the experiment into evidence.
The trial court did not abuse its wide discretion in this instance, especially in light of a recent holding of the Supreme Court:
We hold that a jury is fully capable of assessing a witness’ ability to perceive and remember, given the assistance of cross-examination and cautionary instructions, without the aid of expert testimony-
Johnson v. State, 438 So. 2d 774, 777 (Fla.1983).
AFFIRMED.
SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cruse v. State, 588 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1991)…as well as by the State’s experts at their previous depositions. The decision to allow or disallow surre-buttal evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See Williams v. State, 487 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Gandy v. State, 440 So. 2d 432, 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). We find no abuse of discretion in this case. As his fifth point on appeal, Cruse argues that the trial court erred by refusing to allow lay opinion testimony about Cruse’s sanity. This argument involves the testimony of tw…
-
Reaves v. State, 531 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…s no such thing as surrebuttal.” Surrebuttal testimony is properly admitted in Florida subject to the trial court’s discretion. See Davis v. Ivey, 93 Fla. 387, 112 So. 264 (1927); Williams v. State, 487 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Gandy v. State, 440 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In the instant case, however, the trial court exercised no discretion; rather, it simply held that such testimony was improper as a matter of law, regardless of its content. In other words, the trial court failed to recognize di…
-
Williams v. State, 487 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…and a sentence of fifteen years imprisonment. Under the facts of this case, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to permit rebuttal testimony and to deny Williams’s request to present surre-buttal evidence. Gandy v. State, 440 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The remaining point lacks merit. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 438 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1983)