STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
CONNIE LOU MITCHELL, RESPONDENT
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 reversed trial court's exclusion of eyewitness identification testimony, holding that suggestive police identification procedures do not automatically taint evidence but rather present factual matters for jury consideration.
A trial court errs when it excludes eyewitness identification testimony as a matter of law based solely on suggestive out-of-court police identification procedures; instead, the jury must weigh the reliability of such testimony.
[1] Eyewitness identification testimony obtained through suggestive out-of-court police procedures is not automatically inadmissible but presents factual questions regarding…
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“The respondent may submit and argue to the jury the factual matters of which he complains for the jury to consider in weighing the identification testimony.”
Court's holding that suggestive identification procedures present factual issues for jury determination rather than grounds for automatic exclusion.
The State's two eyewitnesses, Kerley and Allen, identified the defendant through police procedures that the trial court found unnecessarily suggestive…
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 Suggestive Identification Procedures cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In the exercise of our discretionary certiorari right of review1 we treat the State’s notice of appeal in this case as a petition for writ of certiorari.2
We find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements "of law when it excluded from evidence the identification testimony of the State’s only two eyewitnesses by ruling as a matter of law on the facts of this case that their testimony had been irretrievably tainted by unnecessarily suggestive out-of-court police identification procedures. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341 (Fla.1980); State v. Mendez, 423 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Lecoin v. State, 418 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Baxter v. State, 355 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 709 (Fla.1978); State v. Ciongoli, 313 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. dismissed, 337 So. 2d 780 (Fla.1976). The respondent may submit and argue to the jury the factual matters of which he complains for the jury to consider in weighing the identification testimony.
The order of the trial court suppressing the identification testimony of the witnesses Kerley and Allen is
QUASHED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur. . Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1983).
. Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rahme v. State, 474 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…m that viewing rather than solely from the lineup. This rendered the error harmless. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); State v. Mitchell, 445 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We agree with appellant also that the trial judge unnecessarily and thus improperly injected himself into the trial by asking a witness questions which were repetitious of those posed by the prosecutor and which could have giv…
-
Lacalle v. State, 479 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…method for seeking review of a circuit court appellate decision is by petition for writ of certiorari. Fla.R. App.P. 9.030(b)(2)(B). We therefore treat this appeal as an application for a writ of certiorari, Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c); State v. Mitchell, 445 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA [*815] 1984), and upon consideration, deny the relief sought. Our decision is based upon a holding that no departure from the essential requirements of law appears in the record. Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1983); Miller v. St…
Authorities Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972)
- Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983)
- Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1980)
- Baxter v. State, 355 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- State v. Ciongoli, 313 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Frantz Lecoin v. State, 418 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- State v. Mendez, 423 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Joyce Lee Holton et ux. v. Atl. Dep't Stores, Inc., 337 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1976)
- Ciongoli v. State, 337 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1976)