LOUIS REED, 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.
Louis Reed appealed his conviction for aggravated battery and aggravated assault, challenging the admission of a photographic lineup he claimed was unduly suggestive. The Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to admit the evidence, finding no abuse of discretion.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographic lineup. The court found nothing unusually suggestive in the photographs, and the circumstances substantially mitigated any risk of misidentification, warranting admission of the evidence.
[1] A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence, including photographic lineups, is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] The test for suppressing an out-of-court identification requires determining if the police used an unnecessarily suggestive procedure and, if so, whether the procedure cr…
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“The test for suppression of an out-of-court identification is two-fold: (1) whether the police used an unnecessarily suggestive procedure to obtain the out-of-court identification; and (2) if so, considering all of the circumstances, whether the suggestive procedure gave rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for evaluating photographic lineup admissibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReed was identified through a photographic lineup in which all persons pictured wore glasses, though Reed argued his glasses were larger and thicker 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 Likelihood Of Irreparable Misidentification cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
The appellant, Louis Reed, raises a single issue in this appeal from his judgment and sentence for aggravated battery and aggravated assault. He asks us to consider whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a photographic lineup. He argues that the photographs contained in the lineup were unduly sug gestive, and seeks a new trial. We review the rulings of a trial court using an abuse of discretion standard. See San Martin v. State, 717 So. 2d 462 (Fla.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1071, 119 S.Ct. 1468, 143 L.Ed.2d 553 (1999). Because we conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting this evidence, we affirm.
The test for suppression of an out-of-court identification is two-fold: (1) whether the police used an unnecessarily suggestive procedure to obtain the out-of-court identification; and (2) if so, considering all of the circumstances, whether the suggestive procedure gave rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. See Rimmer v. State, 825 So. 2d 304, 315 (Fla.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1034, 123 S.Ct. 567, 154 L.Ed.2d 453 (2002); Thomas v. State, 748 So. 2d 970, 981 (Fla. 1999); Green v. State, 641 So. 2d 391, 394 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1159, 115 S.Ct. 1120, 130 L.Ed.2d 1083 (1995); Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341, 343 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1987, 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981). Among the factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification are:
The opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witnesses’ degree of attention, the accuracy of the witnesses’ prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation, and the length of time between the crime and the confrontation.
Grant, 390 So. 2d at 343.
Here, Mr. Reed argues that although all of the persons shown in the photographic lineup are' wearing glasses, his glasses are larger and thicker. First, we find nothing unusually suggestive in the photographs. Moreover, there was little possibility of irreparable misidentification because the victims were in close contact with Mr. Reed for an extended period of time prior to the assault and battery, both victims conversed with Mr. Reed, and both victims made positive in-court identifications of him. We conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of the lineup.
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Thomas v. State, 748 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1999)
- Martin v. State, 717 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 1998)
- Grant v. State, 390 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1980)
- Rimmer v. State, 825 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2002)
- Delgado v. Israel, 451 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1981)
- Girardi v. Virginia, 451 U.S. 913 (U.S. 1981)
- Crosley Alexander Green v. State, 641 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1994)
- Cross v. United States Parole Comm'n, 526 U.S. 1071 (U.S. 1999)
- Lambirth v. Yearwood, 526 U.S. 1071 (U.S. 1999)
- Jost v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 1034 (U.S. 2002)