RICHARD SHEPHERD, 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.
The court held that even if an identification procedure was suggestive, the totality of circumstances showed no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification, supporting the convictions.
Following a carjacking, the appellant fled from police in the victim's vehicle, crashed it, and was apprehended. The victim and witnesses identified t…
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 Irreparable Misidentification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s convictions in this case. Even assuming an improperly suggestive identification procedure, the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that there was no substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199-200, 98 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972); Macias v. State, 673 So. 2d 176, 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Minutes after the carjacking, a police officer spotted the victim’s vehicle. Once the officer activated his blue lights, the vehicle accelerated to a high speed and began swerving from lane to lane. The officer saw the vehicle run a red light and rear end another car. Appellant exited from the driver’s side door and started to run, ignoring the officer’s commands to stop, until he was caught by a K-9 officer. The other carj acker was also caught at the scene.
The victim and witnesses identified appellant thirty minutes to an hour after the crime. See Blanco v. State, 452 So. 2d 520, 524 (Fla.1984) (noting that an identification made shortly after the crime is inherently more reliable than a later identification in court); State v. Cromartie, 419 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Witness Theresa Wade was in the parking lot at the time of the carjacking; she described the earjack-ers as young black males, one taller than the other. She especially noticed the “ugly” pants and sports team jacket worn by the taller of the two. At the show-up, Wade identified appellant as one of the carjackers from his clothing and build, not his face. The K-Mart security guard who testified at the suppression hearing said that he had seen the two suspects in the store a few days before the crime and had also observed them commit the carjacking; he was able to identify appellant by face at the show-up. A detective testified that both Wade and the security guard were positive about their identification at the show-up.
AFFIRMED.
KLEIN, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. State, 759 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Shepherd v. State, 732 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).…
-
Delaveaux v. State, 875 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…how-up identification was in accordance with the relevant legal standards. See State v. Hernandez, 841 So. 2d 469, 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), review denied, 845 So. 2d 890 (Fla.2003). We find no error in the trial court’s ruling. See Shepherd v. State, 732 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972)
- Blanco v. State, 452 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Cromartie, 419 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- MacIas v. State, 673 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)