JAMES TAYLOR AND ELIJAH PRATT, APPELLANTS,
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.
The court held that the evidence of identification was sufficient to support the conviction.
Appellants were convicted of robbery after a non-jury trial. They appealed, arguing the evidence identifying them as the perpetrators was insufficient…
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 Identification Of Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants were convicted of robbery in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County after a non-jury trial. They were jointly tried and have jointly prosecuted this appeal. The sole question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence as to the identification of the appellants as the persons who committed the crime.
The appellants rely for reversal upon Ross v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 187 and cases cited therein. On that appeal this Court held the evidence of identity insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision recognized the rule that in criminal prosecutions, a verdict of guilty will ordinarily not be disturbed where there are conflicts in the evidence as to the identification of the person charged with the crime, since such conflicts are for the jury to determine. Ray v. State, 159 Fla. 101, 31 So.2d 156, 172 A.L.R. 726. The decision applied an exception to the rule which is that where the record demonstrates that the identification witness or witnesses did not have a sufficient opportunity to observe the features, voice, mannerisms or demeanor of the defendant, an appellate court may reverse upon a holding that the evidence is insufficient.
The facts of this case fall within the general rule and not the exception. The record reveals that the victim who identified the appellants had an opportunity and did observe them for some time prior to the assault and robbery.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alray Singleton v. State, 315 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…nesses, one who identified him and the other who stated that he was not the robber. The judgment and sentence are affirmed upon the authority of the rule stated in State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So. 2d 893; see also Taylor v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 517 and Gilbert v. State, Fla.App.1975, 311 So. 2d 384. Affirmed.…
-
Yuanis v. State, 347 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…There being conflicts in the evidence as to the identification of the defendant as being the perpetrator of the crime, the duty devolved upon the trier of the facts, in the instant case the trial judge, to resolve the conflict. See Taylor v. State, 199 So. 2d 517 (Fla.3d DCA 1967). On this identity issue the record contains substantial competent evidence to support the guilty verdict and, therefore, we will not disturb the convictions on appeal. Cf. Taylor, supra; Jenkins v. State, 211 So. 2d 242 [*449] (Fla…
-
Moorehead v. State, 597 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…endant and his counsel accepted the jury as seated.2 Joiner a/k/a John Blue v. State, [*842] 593 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). No merit is found in the identification argument, Ray v. State, 159 Fla. 101, 31 So. 2d 156 (Fla.1947); Taylor v. State, 199 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), therefore, the verdicts, adjudications and sentences hereunder review, are affirmed. Affirmed. . State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984). . From the record, page 68 and 69: "MR. SAMMS: We accept, judge.” [*842] ** "MR. SAMMS…
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
- Ray v. State, 159 Fla. 101 (Fla. 1947)
- Ross v. State, 190 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)