ANTONIO HARRIS, 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.
Harris was convicted of attempted second degree murder and armed robbery. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reversed the violent career criminal sentence as unconstitutional under Florida law, remanding for resentencing.
The best evidence rule was not violated because the photograph was used only to explain testimony rather than to prove its contents. The violent career criminal sentencing law is unconstitutional as applied to crimes committed on April 27, 1996, and must be reversed.
[1] The best evidence rule does not apply to photographs offered solely to explain a witness's testimony, rather than to prove the contents of the photograph itself.
[2] A law enacted by the Florida Legislature may be unconstitutional if it violates the single subject requirement of the Florida Constitution.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Most of the time the best evidence rule is not applicable to photographs because the contents of the photograph are not being proved. Photographs are commonly used to explain the testimony of the witness.”
Establishes that the best evidence rule does not apply when photographs are used to explain witness testimony rather than to prove the photograph's contents.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris was convicted of attempted second degree murder and armed robbery for crimes committed on April 27, 1996. At trial, a witness was impeached wit…
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 Violent Career Criminal Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant was convicted of attempted second degree murder and armed robbery. He argues that the admission of a photograph in evidence violates the best evidence rule, and that the law under which he was sentenced as a violent career criminal is unconstitutional as violating the single subject requirement of the Florida Constitution. We affirm the conviction but remand for resentencing.
At trial, the state asked one of its witnesses if the witness had identified the defendant as the shooter from a photograph. After the witness denied doing so, the state was allowed to impeach the witness, during which the witness admitted that he had signed a photograph and had stated that the photograph was of the appellant. He denied stating that the person in the photograph had been the shooter. Appellant argues that the admission of the photograph in evidence violated the best evidence rule because the witness was unable to say whether the photograph was the original that he had seen or a copy. Appellant relies on section 90.952, Florida Statutes (1997), which provides: Requirement of originals. Except as otherwise provided by statute, an original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove the contents of the writing, recording, or photograph.
We disagree with appellant that the admission of the photograph violates the best evidence rule. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence (1995 Ed.) explains in section 951.2:
Most of the time the best evidence rule is not applicable to photographs because the contents of the photograph are not being proved. Photographs are commonly used to explain the testimony of the witness. The photographs are not offered to prove their contents. The contents of a photograph are proved only in cases involving such matters as copyright and defamation.
Because the photograph was used in this case only to explain testimony, its admission did not violate the best evidence rule.
We agree with the appellant, who was sentenced for crimes committed on April 27, 1996, that his sentence as a violent career criminal under Chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, must be reversed. State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1999). We therefore affirm the conviction but remand for resentencing.
STONE, C.J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dolan Darling v. State, 966 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2007)…otographs are commonly used to explain the testimony of the witness. The photographs are not offered to prove their contents. The contents of a photograph are proved only in cases involving such matters as copyright and defamation. Harris v. State, 755 So. 2d 766, 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (quoting Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 951.2 (1995 ed.)). In the instant case, the photograph of the latent fingerprint found on the lotion bottle was offered to explain the testimony of a fingerprint analysis expe…
-
Reid v. State, 799 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…38), the supreme court held that when films are authenticated and shown to be a correct representation of the subject, sound and movement, they are to be admitted under the same rules as photographs. Furthermore, this court noted in Harris v. State, 755 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(quoting Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence (1995 Ed.)), that “[p]ho-tographs are commonly used to explain the testimony of the witness.” Id. at 767. Here, the videotape was a compilation of the four videotapes recorded by Sears, by diffe…
-
Perez v. State, 856 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ch is no different from testifying about the images depicted on a photograph. See Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Stossel, 131 Fla. 127, 179 So. 163 (1938) (holding authenticated video is admitted under the same rule as photographs); see also Harris v. State, 755 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“Photographs are commonly used to explain the testimony of witnesses”). Perez also states that Floeter was able to explain what he believed was said during unintelligible portions of the videotape. After a review of the record,…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Thompson, 750 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1999)