DERRICK ALLEN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Allen was convicted of armed kidnapping, robbery, and carjacking. The appellate court affirmed, holding that a physical description of crime perpetrators given by a witness constitutes a non-hearsay statement of identification under Florida Evidence Code § 90.801(2)(c), and any evidentiary error was harmless beyond reasonable doubt.
A physical description of the perpetrator of a crime qualifies as a statement of identification of a person made after perceiving the person under § 90.801(2)(c), and therefore is not hearsay. Additionally, even if there was error in admitting the detective's testimony regarding Pratt's description, such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] A physical description of a crime's perpetrator qualifies as a statement of identification of a person made after perceiving the person under Florida Statutes section 90.…
[2] A statement of identification is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement.
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“A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is ... (c) One of identification of a person made after perceiving the person.”
Sets forth the statutory hearsay exception applicable to identification statements under Florida Evidence Code § 90.801(2)(c).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllen and a codefendant entered a van occupied by Anthony Pratt and his children, ordered Pratt to turn over his wallet, let the family exit, and fled…
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 Hearsay Exception For Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
The question presented by this ease is whether a physical description of the perpetrator of a crime constitutes a statement “of identification of a person made after perceiving the person” within the meaning of paragraph 90.801(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1999). We conclude that the answer is yes and affirm the judgment.
I.
Defendant-appellant Allen was convicted of armed kidnapping, armed robbery, and armed car jacking. The defendant and a codefendant were charged with entering a van occupied by Anthony Pratt and his children. They ordered Mr. Pratt to turn over his wallet. They then let the family exit the car and fled in the van.
At trial, the detective who investigated the case was asked whether Mr. Pratt had given a physical description of the two perpetrators. The trial court overruled the defense hearsay objection and the detective recounted Mr. Pratt’s description of the physical appearance of the two perpetrators.1 Mr. Pratt also testified at trial.
Under the Evidence Code, “A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is ... (c) One of identification of a person made after perceiving the person.” § 90.801(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (1999). We agree with the Fourth District that a physical description of the perpetrator of a crime qualifies as a statement of identification of a person made after perceiving the person. Puryear v. State, 774 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (en banc). We follow Puryear and certify the same question of great public importance:
HAS SWAFFORD V. STATE, 533 So. 2d 270 (Fla.1988) BEEN OVERRULED BY POWER V. STATE, 605 So. 2d 856 (Fla.1992)?
774 So. 2d at 853.
II.
We hold alternatively that if there was any error in the admission of the above evidence, the error was entirely harmless. Mr. Pratt testified at trial and made an in-court identification of the defendant. Further, the defendant was arrested while driving the stolen van, and confessed to the crime. Any error was harmless beyond reasonable doubt. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).2
Affirmed.
. The detective testified:
THE WITNESS: [He] advised that there was one, two subjects, two Black male subjects.
One of them was about five foot eight, one hundred fifty to one hundred sixty pounds. He was a dark skin Black male. He had like Dred like hair, like braids, something on his head.
The second subject, about six feet two, one hundred sixty, one hundred seventy pounds, light skin Black male.
. While we agree with the Fourth District that the evidentiary question should be authoritatively resolved by the Florida Supreme Court, it is debatable whether the present case is an appropriate one in which to grant discretionary review, given that the resolution of the evidentiary issue will not affect the ultimate result in this particular case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. State, 16 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…one count of armed carjacking. In May 2000, Allen was sentenced to life in prison for the four kidnapping counts, and concurrent terms of forty-two years’ imprisonment on the other counts. We affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. Allen v. State, 789 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). This Petition for Writ of Mandamus is Allen’s twentieth petition or motion for postconviction relief to reach this Court stemming from lower tribunal number 98-28508.1 In the present petition, Allen contends that the “lower cour…
-
Lopez v. State, 844 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Freber, 366 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1978); Allen v. State, 789 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2001); Stanford v. State, 576 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).…
-
Allen v. State, 917 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…The petitioner’s convictions and sentences, imposed after a jury finding of guilt, for five counts of armed kidnapping, one count of armed robbery, and one count of armed carjacking, were affirmed by this court on July 5, 2001. See Allen v. State, 789 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, 828 So. 2d 384 (Fla.2002). On May 9, 2002, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging two instances of appellate counsel’s ineffectiveness, which this court denied on October 15, 2002. All…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Swafford v. State, 533 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 1988)
- Power v. State, 605 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1992)
- Puryear v. State, 774 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)