JAMES F. CASON, 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.
James Cason was convicted of armed robbery after a group of masked intruders entered Dr. Jackson's home at dinner hour. On appeal, Cason challenged the sufficiency of identification evidence and the trial court's denial of his motion for severance, but the court affirmed his conviction, finding the voice identification testimony and other evidence sufficient and the joinder of defendants proper.
The court held that the identification evidence was sufficient to support the conviction because Dr. Jackson's voice identification of Cason was based on his prior familiarity with Cason over several years, and such voice identification is a valid means of identifying an accused person. The court also held that severance was properly denied because the evidence did not show that testimony against co-defendants was prejudicial to Cason.
“The human voice has identifiable characteristics, and an accused person may be identified by voice.”
Establishes that voice identification is a valid and recognized method of identifying a defendant in criminal proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA group of armed individuals wearing masks and disguises entered Dr. Kenneth Jackson's lakeside home during dinner. They committed an armed robbery. D…
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 Severance Of Defendants cases and more on FLexlaw
The silk stocking set visited the lakeside home of Dr. Kenneth Jackson one evening at the dinner hour, entering through an unlocked door. The stockings were pulled down over their faces. Pork-pie hats hid their hair. One of the startled diners said that it was a joke. Demonstrating that the guns in their hands were real, the visitors told them that it was no joke. They were right. It was armed robbery, said the jury, and we affirm the judgment entered on their verdict.
James Cason’s appeal rests on two points. He argues that evidence of identification was insufficient. Dr. Jackson positively identified him as one of the robbers. He didn’t recognize Cason at first, and the testimony is unclear whether Cason’s name came to Jackson’s mind unaided or was suggested by an investigator. Nevertheless, Jackson testified that over a period of several years he had talked with Cason by telephone on several occasions and had once heard him address a gathering of physicians. Though the robbers attempted to disguise their voices, Jackson positively identified Cason’s voice. The human voice has identifiable characteristics, and an accused person may be identified by voice. Mack v. State, 1907, 54 Fla. 55, 44 So. 706, 13 L.R.A.,N.S., 373.
Of course the courts must be zealous to insure that retrial is granted in those cases where the evidence of identification is so inconclusive that submission to a second jury seems just under the circumstances. Troop v. State, 1929, 98 Fla. 385, 123 So. 811; Clark v. State, 1929, 98 Fla. 874, 124 So. 446; Brock v. State, 1934, 114 Fla. 309, 153 So. 900. But the evidence in this case is far stronger than that in Ray v. State, 1947, 159 Fla. 101, 31 So.2d 156, 172 A.L.R. 726, which was held sufficient.
Appellant’s second contention is that his motion for severance should have been granted. If there had been evidence directed against a co-defendant which was prejudicial against Cason, this argument would be sound. Suarez v. State, 1928, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519. But there was not. The evidence was of a single episode undertaken by these co-defendants. Cason, not the court, chose his company, and the court properly tried them together. Sawyer v. State, 1931, 100 Fla. 1603, 132 So. 188.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and ALLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saavedra v. State, 576 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…defendant is prejudicial against a defendant, Saavedra maintains that severance is necessary to protect his rights and the failure to grant such severance constitutes reversible error. Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519 (1928); Cason v. State, 211 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1968). The state responds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for severance because, despite Saavedra’s claim of possible antagonistic defenses, no direct evidence implicating appellant was offered by…
-
Barrientos v. State, 1 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…ion. This argument is without merit. Corporal Argote’s testimony was admissible to prove the identity of the person that he heard speaking with the informant by means of the wire. See England v. Slate, 940 So. 2d 389, 401 (Fla.2006); Cason v. State, 211 So. 2d 604, 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). The credibility of this evidence was a question for the jury. See Worley v. State, 263 So. 2d 613, 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). IV.THE JURY INSTRUCTION ISSUES A. The Written Instructions At the joint trial held in February 20…
-
Truluck Herbert Johnson v. State, 348 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…Chester’s testimony. See Martin v. State, 100 Fla. 16, 129 So. 112 (1930); Wright v. State, 182 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Stuckey v. State, 199 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Jenkins v. State, 208 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Cason v. State, 211 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Smith v. State, 221 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Gilbert v. State, 311 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Emelio Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1928)
- Vazquez v. Ailyn M. Rebaza Smith (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- Enslow Sawyer and Sam Thomas Smythe v. State, 100 Fla. 1603 (Fla. 1931)
- Dock Mack v. State, 54 Fla. 55 (Fla. 1907)
- Clark v. State, 98 Fla. 874 (Fla. 1929)
- Ray v. State, 159 Fla. 101 (Fla. 1947)
- Troop v. State, 98 Fla. 385 (Fla. 1929)
- Brock v. State, 114 Fla. 309 (Fla. 1934)