JIMMIE LEE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
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.
Jimmie Lee Williams appealed his conviction for breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit petit larceny and assault, contending that a police officer's reference to mug shots during testimony constituted reversible error. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that while mug shot references are generally harmful, they were not reversible error here because guilt was established by overwhelming direct evidence including positive in-court identification.
The reference to mug shots did not constitute reversible error. Although such references can be harmful by implying the defendant had committed other crimes or had prior police involvement, the error was not reversible in this case because guilt was established by overwhelming direct evidence, including positive in-court identification by the victim and apprehending officers, and the mug shot testimony was cumulative.
[1] A reference to a defendant being identified from mug shots can constitute reversible error if it informs the jury that the defendant has committed other crimes or been in…
[2] A reference to mug shots does not constitute reversible error when the defendant's guilt is established by direct, conclusive, or overwhelming evidence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the reference to mug shots was harmful error in that it had the effect of informing the jury that the defendant had committed other crimes or been in trouble with the police”
Establishes the general rule that mug shot references are harmful error, citing the court's prior holding in Jones v. State
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit petit larceny and commission of an assault. During trial, a police of…
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 Harmful Error cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks reversal of a conviction for breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit petit larceny and commission of an assault, grounding his appeal on a contention that reversible error resulted from a reference in the testimony of a police officer to the victim having identified the defendant from mug shots.
In Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 24, this court reversed a judgment of conviction because the prosecutor in his opening statement to the jury in referring to the defendant having been identified from a photograph, said that a photograph of the defendant had been mixed “with a bunch, a whole bunch of others, let’s say ten or twelve other mug shots.” There we expressed the view that the reference to mug shots was harmful error in that it had the effect of informing the jury that the defendant had committed other crimes or been in trouble with the police.
However, on consideration of the record of the trial proceedings in this case, we agree with the contention of the state that the error represented by the reference to mug shots did not constitute harmful error and did not result in a miscarriage of justice. In our view the defendant’s substantial rights were not injuriously affected thereby, in the circumstances of this case. The trial court sustained an objection to the testimony, and denied defendant’s motion for mistrial, which latter ruling is assigned as error. The reference to mug shots in this case did not constitute reversible error, because the record discloses that by direct evidence the guilt of the accused was established conclusively if not overwhelmingly, including positive in-court identification of the defendant by the victim and by police officers who apprehended him at the scene, and because of the further circumstance that the testimony of an officer relating to identification of the de*429fendant by photograph, in the course of which the reference was made to mug shots, represented cumulative evidence. See Monroe v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 209; Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Loftin v. State, 273 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1973)…rror was harmful. The [*72] First District Court of Appeal was correct and the writ of certiorari heretofore entered must be and is hereby Discharged. CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS and McCAIN, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., dissents. . Williams v. State, 233 So. 2d 428 (Fla.App.3d 1970); Anderson v. State, 230 So. 2d 704 (Fla.App.2d 1970); Gagnon v. State, 212 So. 2d 337 (Fla.App.3d 1968).…
-
Wallace v. Rashkow, 270 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…State, Fla.1950, 49 So. 2d 232, Eggers v. Phillips Hardware Co., Fla. 1956, 88 So. 2d 507. This requires considering the error in light of the entire transcript to determine if a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Williams v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So. 2d 428, Fla.Stat. § 59.041, F.S.A., harmless error; effect. The second point raised on appeal is also answered in the negative. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for directed verdict. This was a question of fact properly decided by…
-
Mancebo v. State, 350 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…uire an automatic reversal; rather, the question must be resolved on the basis of the entire record and surrounding circumstances under which the photographs were introduced. Loftin v. State, 273 So. 2d 70, 71 (Fla.1973). See also Williams v. State, 233 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Our examination of the entire record and surrounding circumstances in this case, including the precautions taken by the trial judge in “cropping” the photographs, reveals that the introduction of the photographs was harmless, at…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1969)
- Jones v. State, 194 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Vaughn Monroe v. State, 218 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)