ROOSEVELT JOHNSON, 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.
Roosevelt Johnson appealed his conviction for robbery, kidnapping, and sexual battery, challenging the admission of an out-of-court photographic identification made by the victim. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding the photographic lineup was not impermissibly suggestive and that any potential misidentification risk was minimal given the victim's in-court identification and prior face-to-face contact with the assailant.
The photographic lineup was not impermissibly suggestive under the circumstances, and there was no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The conviction was affirmed.
[1] A photographic lineup is not impermissibly suggestive merely because it does not exclude individuals who, unlike the defendant, were not known to have had prior contact w…
[2] A victim's face-to-face opportunity to view an assailant at the time of the crime, coupled with a "very certain" in-court identification, weighs against a substantial lik…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 find that the lineup was not' impermissibly suggestive in that context.”
The court's holding that the photographic lineup procedure did not violate Johnson's identification rights.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was convicted of robbery, kidnapping, and sexual battery and sentenced to life imprisonment. The victim had registered Johnson as a guest at a…
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 Kidnapping cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a judgment of conviction and sentence for rob bery, kidnapping and sexual battery, for which he received a term of life imprisonment. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting an out-of-court identification of appellant by the victim because it was the product of an unnecessarily suggestive photographic lineup procedure. Appellant finds no infirmity with the procedure except that the lineup, which consisted of the photographs of six black males in addition to appellant, was not restricted to black men who, like appellant, were known to have been former guests at the hotel where the victim worked. The single asserted visual contact between the victim and appellant prior to the crime occurred when the victim registered appellant as a guest at the hotel on one occasion a month before the crime. The officer who compiled the photographic lineup testified that, although she became aware at the time she was compiling the lineup that appellant had stayed at the hotel on one occasion prior to the crime and had been registered by the victim, she had no knowledge of whether any of the six individuals other than appellant had ever been a guest at the hotel or in contact with the victim prior to the crime. We find that the lineup was not' impermissibly suggestive in that context.
Further, under the circumstances of this case, where the victim had an opportunity to view her assailant face-to-face at the time of the crime, and made a “very certain” in-court identification of appellant, we find no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. See Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341 (Fla.1980). We also note that appellant failed to either move to suppress or object at trial to this evidence, and finding no fundamental error in the introduction of this out-of-court identification, we affirm.
Affirmed.
MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fritzner Sanon v. State, 669 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. § 90.104(1)(b), Fla.Stat. (1995); see Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341, 344 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1987, 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981); State v. Freeman, 380 So. 2d 1288 (Fla.1980); Johnson v. State, 571 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).…
Authorities Cited
- Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1980)