BURNICE E. MORRIS, 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 appellant was convicted of armed robbery and appealed, arguing that being forced to wear a specific jacket in a police line-up violated his right against self-incrimination. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that this action did not violate his constitutional rights.
No, requiring a defendant to wear a specific piece of clothing during a police line-up does not violate the constitutional right against self-incrimination.
“Appellant contends that his constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination was violated when he was required, in a police station line-up, to wear the red plaid jacket identified by the witnesses as the jacket worn by him while committing the crime.”
This quote states the appellant's main argument on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Burnice E. Morris, was convicted of armed robbery. During a police line-up, he was required to wear a red plaid jacket that witnesses i…
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.
The appellant was convicted of the crime of armed robbery. All of his points on appeal have been determined in Florida, except one, adversely to him. Moffett v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 408; Williams v. State, 1940, 143 Fla. 826, 197 So. 562; Range v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 534.
Appellant contends that his constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination was violated when he was required, in a police station line-up, to wear the red plaid jacket identified by the witnesses as the jacket worn by him while committing the crime. While we find no Florida decision on this specific point, the overwhelming majority of other jurisdictions hold that such action does not constitute a violation of his constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. See Holt v. United States, 1910, 218 U.S. 245, 31 S.Ct. 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021; Crenshaw v. State, 1932, 225 Ala. 346, 142 So. 669; People v. Lopez, 1963, 60 Cal.2d 223, 32 Cal.Rptr. 424, 384 P.2d 16; People v. Pecho, 1936, 362 Ill. 568, 200 N.E. 860; Ross v. State, 1932, 204 Ind. 281, 182 N.E. 865; Barrett v. State, 1950, 190 Tenn. 366, 229 S.W.2d 516, 18 A.L.R.2d 789; Richardson v. State, 1934, 168 Miss. 788, 151 So. 910; White v. State, 1901, Tex.Cr.App., 62 S.W. 749; and Annot. 18 A.L.R.2d 796 (1951).
Affirmed.
WALDEN, J., and KANNER (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245 (U.S. 1910)
- Ivory Lee Williams v. State, 143 Fla. 826 (Fla. 1940)
- Range v. State, 156 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Moffett v. State, 179 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)