EDWARD ROBERT MARSHALL, 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.
Edward Marshall was convicted of armed robbery based partly on eyewitness identification following a photographic lineup. On appeal, Marshall challenged the admission of testimony about his identification from photographs at the police station, arguing it was unreliable. The court affirmed, holding that photographic identifications are permissible if not impermissibly suggestive.
The court held that photographic identification procedures are permissible and that testimony about such identification is admissible. Convictions based on eyewitness identification following pretrial photographic identification will be set aside only if the photographic identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive and gave rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.
[1] A conviction based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside only if the photographic identification proce…
[2] The use of photographic identification procedures by law enforcement is permissible for apprehending offenders and sparing innocent suspects.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Despite the hazards of initial identification by photographs, this procedure has been used widely and effectively in criminal law enforcement, from the standpoint both of apprehending offenders and of sparing innocent suspects the ignominy of arrest by allowing eyewitnesses to exonerate them through scrutiny of photographs.”
Establishes the legitimate uses and benefits of photographic identification procedures in criminal law enforcement
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a telephone tip, police staked out the Highland Liquor Store in Duval County and observed Marshall and a companion exit the store, cut a pho…
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 Likelihood Of Irreparable Misidentification cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was found guilty by a jury of committing an armed robbery at the Highland Liquor Store in Duval County, Florida.
Following a telephone tip-off, the police staked out the scene of the robbery and observed appellant and his companion come out of the store, cut the wire in a nearby phone booth and get into a car parked nearby, stationed so as to effect their rapid departure. As the officers closed in, appellant and the other ran but were captured in the immediate vicinity. Appellant still had the sawed-off shotgun on him when apprehended.
The sole question raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred when the store manager and victim of the robbery was permitted to testify that he identified appellant in some photographs at the police *446station on the night of the robbery. Although the victim testified that he recognized and was able to identify appellant as the robber independently of the photographs, and did in fact so identify appellant, it is contended that it was error to permit testimony as to the incident at the station the night of the robbery when appellant was identified in the photographs. Appellant’s argument in this point is without merit. In Tafero v. State, 223 So.2d 564 (Fla.App.1969), the court rejected a similar contention on authority of a recent Supreme Court decision, Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, at page 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, at page 971, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968), in which the court stated:
“Despite the hazards of initial identification by photographs, this procedure has been used widely and effectively in criminal law enforcement, from the standpoint both of apprehending offenders and of sparing innocent suspects the ignominy of arrest by allowing eyewitnesses to exonerate them through scrutiny of photographs. The danger that use of the technique may result in convictions based on misidentification may be substantially lessened by a course of cross-examination at trial which exposes to the jury the method’s potential for error. We are unwilling to prohibit its employment, either in the exercise of our supervisory power or, still less, as a matter of constitutional requirement. Instead, we hold that each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misiden-tification.”
Affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD, K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lewis v. State, 256 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967); Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969). The holding in Simmons v. United States has been considered under circumstances similar to the present case in Marshall v. State, Fla.App.1970, 238 So. 2d 445. In that case the court held: ** “The sole question raised on appeal is whether the trial court erred when the store manager and victim of the robbery was permitted to testify that he identified appellant in some photographs at the police station…
Authorities Cited
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968)
- Tafero v. State, 223 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)