JOE WILLIS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Willis was convicted of robbery after a trial court admitted testimony about an extrajudicial identification made by the victim. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the admission of such evidence when the identifying witness is present at trial and subject to cross-examination, but clarified that it may be used only for corroboration, not as independent substantive evidence of identity.
Testimony regarding extrajudicial identification by a police officer who witnessed the victim's identification is admissible when the identifying witness is present at trial and subject to cross-examination. However, such testimony may only be used to corroborate the identifying witness's trial testimony and to rebut impeachment, not as original or substantive evidence of identity.
“Such testimony is direct evidence of facts that are within the personal knowledge of the witness who observes the victim make an identification of the accused from photographs or a police lineup, and is admissible when the identifying witness is present and testifies at the trial, and is subject to cross-examination by the accused.”
Establishes the primary rule permitting extrajudicial identification testimony when conditions are met
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillis was charged with and tried for robbery. A police officer testified about an extrajudicial identification made by the victim the day after the o…
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 Obiter Dictum cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner was charged, tried and found guilty by a jury of the offense of robbery. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeal. Willis v. State, 208 So.2d 458 (1 DCA Fla.1968).
On appeal to the District Court petitioner challenged the correctness of the trial court’s ruling which admitted into evidence over petitioner’s objection testimony of a police officer who witnessed an extrajudicial identification of petitioner by the victim of the robbery the day after the offense occurred. The District Court in affirming the trial court stated in part as follows:
“Such testimony is direct evidence of facts that are within the personal knowledge of the witness who observes the victim make an identification of the accused from photographs or a police lineup, and is admissible when the identifying witness is present and testifies at the trial, and is subject to cross-examination by the accused. Such testimony has always been considered admissible in rebuttal of testimony tending to impeach or discredit the testimony of the identifying witness, or to rebut a charge, imputation, or suggestion of falsity. All courts seem to be agreed, however, that such testimony cannot be considered by a jury as original or substantive evidence as to the identity of the accused as a guilty party, but may be considered in corroboration of the testimony of the identifying witness at the trial. We therefore hold that the trial court did not commit error in admitting the testimony of the police officer in the case sub judice concerning the extrajudicial identification made of [petitioner] by the victim and his former employee.”
We issued a writ of certiorari because of apparent conflict between the decision of the District Court of Appeal with the opinion of this Court in Martin v. State, 100 Fla. 16, 129 So. 112 (1930):
“In other words, testimony by officers or third persons that the victims identified the defendant, or a photograph as that of defendant, at some time prior to the trial, and not in a court, is not generally admissible, as being hearsay and extrajudicial identification * *
We conclude that the First District Court opinion accurately expresses the prevailing law on the subject and the above *108quotation from said opinion is hereby approved. The quotation from Martin is obiter, unnecessary to the decision in that case, and to the extent that it may be considered as authority is receded from.
The writ heretofore issued in this cause is accordingly quashed.
CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
State v. Freber, 366 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1978)…OVERTON, Judge. This cause is before the Court on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 352 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). That decision conflicts with Willis v. State, 217 So. 2d 106 (Fla.1968), and Williams v. State, 350 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). We have jurisdiction.1 The issue is whether evidence of a prior out-of-court identification is admissible when the witness is unable to identify the [*427] defendant at trial. W…
-
Downer v. State, 375 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1979)…pretrial deposition Ms. Gelson described this photograph of Ms. Cohen as “vaguely familiar.” At trial, this witness reiterated, essentially, this characterization when again shown the photograph. Citing the decision of this Court in Willis v. State, 217 So. 2d 106 (Fla.1968), appellant Cohen contends that these extrajudicial identifications of her photograph should not have been considered by the jury as substantive or original evidence of her identity, because Ms. Gelson was unable to make an in-eourt identi…
-
Johnson v. State, 249 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…the victim made of a photograph purporting to be that of appellant Marion [*455] Johnson should not have been considered by the jury as original or substantive evidence as to the identity of the accused as a guilty party. Willis v. State, Fla.1968, 217 So. 2d 106. It could only be considered in corroboration of the testimony of the identifying witness at the trial. Here there was no identification testimony by the victim to be corroborated. He did not make an in-court identification of Johnson nor did he tes…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Town of Boynton v. State, 100 Fla. 16 (Fla. 1930)
- Willis v. State, 208 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)