LARRY ANSON BOYER, 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.
This case reviews a defendant's conviction for multiple felonies, including robbery. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that compelling a defendant to speak for identification in a police lineup and allowing testimony about their voice does not violate the privilege against self-incrimination. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
No, compelling a defendant to speak for identification in a police lineup and allowing testimony about their voice does not violate the privilege against self-incrimination. Yes, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“It has been held that it is not a violation of the privilege against self-incrimination to compel one who is accused or suspected of a crime to speak for the purpose of identification in a police lineup and to allow a witness who heard the defendant speak to testify to such fact at the trial.”
Establishes the court's holding regarding the privilege against self-incrimination in the context of police lineups.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of robbery, breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, aggravated assault, and grand larceny. During a police l…
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 Intent To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, Larry Anson Boyer, appeals his conviction of robbery, breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, aggravated assault and grand larceny.
At the trial the victim, as a prosecution witness, testified to the fact that when the defendant appeared in a police lineup he refused to speak or, at least, to speak audibly. It has been held that it is not a violation of the privilege against self-incrimination to compel one who is accused or suspected of a crime to speak for the purpose of identification in a police lineup and to allow a witness who heard the defendant speak to testify to such fact at the trial. Holt v. United States, 1910, 218 U.S. 245, 31 S.Ct. 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021; Hunt v. State, 1946, 248 Ala. 217, 27 So.2d 186; People v. Lopez, 1964, 60 Cal.2d 223, *2032 Cal.Rptr. 424, 384 P.2d 16 (cert. den., 372 U.S. 994, 84 S.Ct. 634, 11 L.Ed.2d 480); Barrett v. State, 1950, 190 Tenn. 366, 229 S.W.2d 516, 18 A.L.R.2d 789.
To speak inaudibly or to speak without moving his lips would come within the same rule.
The other question raised is the sufficiency of the evidence. The evidence was entirely circumstantial. The defendant testified and attempted to establish an alibi. A careful examination of the record reveals that there was sufficient evidence to establish the guilt 'of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and ANDREWS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. State, 379 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1979)…ers no protection against compulsion to submit a voice exemplar and since it does not privilege refusal to submit, the admission of Clark’s refusal into evidence was not error. See Joseph v. State, 316 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Boyer v. State, 182 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Higgins v. Wainwright, 424 F. 2d 177 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 905, 91 S.Ct. 145, 27 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). Furthermore, we find no error in the trial court’s instruction to the jury pertaining to this refusal. [*103]…
-
Joseph v. State, 316 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…908 (1966); United States v. Ryan, 478 F. 2d 1008 (5th Cir. [*586] 1973); Higgins v. Wainwright, 424 F. 2d 177 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 400 U.S. 905, 91 S.Ct. 145, 27 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Parkin v. State, 238 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1970); Boyer v. State, 182 So. 2d 19 (4th DCA Fla.1966). Appellant’s second point is somewhat related to the first. He contends that when he refused to speak a phrase as ordered by the court it was error for the court to permit the witness to state in the presence of the jury that the…
-
Lusk v. State, 367 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…d States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); Parkin v. State, 238 So. 2d 817 (Fla.1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 974, 91 S.Ct. 1189, 28 L.Ed.2d 322 (1971); Joseph v. State, 316 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Boyer v. State, 182 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), cert. denied, 388 U.S. 913, 87 S.Ct. 2118, 18 L.Ed.2d 1353 (1967); Higgins v. Wainwright, 424 F. 2d 177 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 905, 91 S.Ct. 145, 27 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Springer v. State, 372 N.E. 2d 466, 472 (I…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245 (U.S. 1910)