JOHNNY LEE HARRIS ET AL., APPELLANTS,

v.

THE DIRECTORS OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF CORRECTION, SUPERINTENDENTS OF FLORIDA STATE PRISON ET AL., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Arrington v. State, 233 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1970)
  …n, the testimony of the second witness was excessive and inflammatory for reasons explained by Judge Rawls in reversing a conviction in a case in which the victim’s wife and sister were called to identify the deceased. Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 58. All of the precedents of this court are in accord. Melbourne v. State, 1906, 51 Fla. 69, 40 So. 189; Rowe v. State, 1935, 120 Fla. 649, 163 So. 22. See also Hathaway v. State, Fla. App.1958, 100 So. 2d 662; Annotation, 67 A.L.R.2d 731. Whitney v.…
• Ashmore v. State, 214 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
  …a mistrial on the ground that it was prejudicial to use the surviving spouse as a witness to identify the deceased when there was readily available another witness by whom this same purpose could be accomplished. This court held in Gibson v. State, 191 So. 2d 58, that it was error to prove the identity of the body of a deceased by members of the family of the deceased when that fact could have been proven by other witnesses who were not members of the family. The record in the case at bar demonstrates that…
• Anderson Scott v. State, 256 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
  …on-related witnesses are available to make such identification. See Melbourne v. State, 1906, 51 Fla. 69, 40 So. 189; Rowe v. State, 1935, 120 Fla. 649, 163 So. 22; Hathaway v. State, Fla.App.1958, 100 So. 2d 662; Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 58. In the instant case the mother of the victim testified and established the identity of the deceased, although other witnesses not related to the decedent were available and could have been used to satisfy the identification requirement. If there…

Authorities Cited

• Kelly v. The State of Fla. ex rel. Frank K. Leonard & R. R. Russell, 92 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1956)
• Carnley v. Cochran, 123 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1960)