STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRY E. BENTON, 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.
A lay witness may offer opinion testimony identifying a person from a photograph if there is a basis to conclude the witness is more likely to correctly identify the defendant than the jury.
The state petitioned for certiorari to review an order excluding identification testimony in a felony prosecution. The defendant was charged with robb…
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 Lay Opinion Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1068] PER CURIAM.
The state petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the circuit court which would exclude certain identification testimony in the pending felony prosecution of respondent Harry Benton. We grant the petition.
Benton is charged in three separate cases with robbing convenience stores. Photos of the robbery in progress were taken by hidden camera. None of the victims was able to make an independent identification. However, the police apparently received information that Benton had been involved in the robberies. A detective showed the surveillance photos to three persons who had known Benton for a number of years, and all expressed their opinion that the individual in the photos was Benton. The trial court’s order bars the state from using the testimony of these three witnesses, but not the photos themselves.
Our recent opinion in State v. Cordia, 564 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), is dispos-itive. A lay witness may offer his opinion about the identification of another person, including identification of a voice, as in Cordia, or from a photo “if there is some basis for concluding that the witness is more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the photograph than is the jury.” United States v. Robinson, 804 F. 2d 280, 282 (4th Cir.1986). See also, Hardie v. State, 513 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 520 So. 2d 586 (Fla.1988). It is not necessary that the identification witness be an eyewitness to the crime itself.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari, quash the circuit court’s order granting Benton's motion in limine, and remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Certiorari granted.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and RYDER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ibar v. State, 938 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006)…ion, the majority’s reasoning fails to recognize that Florida case law already allows the conviction of defendants through the testimony of persons who can identify the defendant but who have no relationship to the crime. See, e.g., State v. Benton, 567 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“A lay witness may offer his opinion about the identification of another person ... from a photo ‘if there is some basis for concluding that the witness is more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the photograph…
-
State v. Price, 701 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…of appellant in court for the jury. Kenny Williams is a police officer in the same department which made the case against appellant but the jury was never told that Williams was a policeman. (Emphasis mine). (Id. at pp. 868-869) In State v. Benton, 567 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. App. 2 Dist.1990), the Court concluded that a lay witness may offer his opinion about the identification of another person, and that it is not necessary that the identification witness be an eyewitness to the crime itself. The witnesses in Ben…
-
Lanier v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2023)…roof of identity. See England v. State, 940 So. 2d 389, 401 (Fla. 2006). Moreover, such recognition testimony may be offered through lay witnesses, and does not require a voice recognition expert or party to the conversation. See State v. Benton, 567 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (noting that of another person, including identification of a voice”). In the present case, there was witness testimony identifying Defendant by voice. The Court finds there was sufficient evidence at trial to establish…
Authorities Cited
- Gonzalez v. State, 513 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- State v. Cordia, 564 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- United States v. Robinson, 804 F.2d 280 (4th Cir. 1986)