T.D.T., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1990-05-31
No. 89-1647
DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
561 So. 2d 1333 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1990)

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.


Holding

The court held that the defendant must be present at a jury view unless the right is waived, and excluding the defendant from the view was error.


Facts & Procedural History

An officer observed a juvenile enter a vehicle matching the description of a stolen car and later identified the defendant from a photo book. At trial…

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.


Opinion of the Court
HARRIS, Judge.

HARRIS, Judge.

Officer Callison observed a juvenile exit the Seminole County Courthouse and enter a “rose-colored” Oldsmobile which appeared similar to a stolen 1983 Oldsmobile. The stolen vehicle was reported to be “champagne or sable color which looked like light brown.” The stolen vehicle was recovered later that day. Officer Callison personally observed the vehicle and determined it was the same vehicle he had seen the juvenile enter. Callison then viewed a juvenile photo book and identified appellant as the one seen in the stolen Oldsmobile.

At trial the color of the stolen vehicle was questioned. In order to resolve the issue the judge conducted a view of the courthouse parking lot where the victim had parked the Oldsmobile. The judge specifically excluded the defendant from participating in the view. This was error and we reverse.

The defendant must be present at a jury1 view unless he or, with his consent, his attorney waives that right. Amazon v. State, 487 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1986) cert. denied, 479 U.S. 914, 107 S.Ct. 314, 93 L.Ed.2d 288 (1986); Roberts v. State, 510 So. 2d 885 (Fla.1987) cert. denied, 485 U.S. 943, 108 S.Ct. 1123, 99 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988). See also McHaney v. State, 513 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur. . In this case the trial judge was the "jury.1


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw