EDDIE D. GRANT, 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.
Eddie Grant appealed his conviction for robbery at an ABC Liquor Store in Tallahassee, challenging the sufficiency of evidence identifying him as the perpetrator. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that direct eyewitness identification by the store manager, corroborated by circumstantial evidence including clothing and appellant's consciousness of guilt, provided legally sufficient evidence of guilt.
The court held that the evidence of appellant's guilt was legally sufficient. The store manager's direct identification of appellant as the robber constituted the primary evidence, and the hat and coat worn at apprehension, along with appellant's consciousness of guilt evidenced by his flight, provided corroborating evidence that amply supported the jury's verdict.
[1] Evidence of guilt is legally sufficient when a store manager identifies the defendant as the perpetrator of a robbery and testifies that the defendant was within a few fe…
[2] Clothing worn by a defendant at the time of apprehension can serve as corroborating evidence supporting direct eyewitness identification of the defendant as the perpetrat…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A review of the testimony reveals that the evidence of appellant's guilt is legally sufficient. The manager at the store, Mr. Mike Malloy, identified the appellant as the person who committed the robbery. Malloy testified that appellant was in the store twice the same night, the robbery occurring on appellant's second visit. Malloy stated that appellant was within a few feet of him and he was able to look right in his face.”
Establishes the court's holding regarding sufficiency of evidence and the basis of the store manager's identification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA robbery occurred at the ABC Liquor Store in Tallahassee on February 5, 1970. The store manager, Mike Malloy, testified that Grant visited the store …
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 Eyewitness Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
A trial jury rendered its verdict finding that appellant committed a robbery at the ABC Liquor Store in Tallahassee, Florida, on February 5, 1970. Appellant now seeks reversal of the judgment and sentence imposed upon him in consequences of the jury’s verdict.
The sole question raised on the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence identifying appellant as the person who perpetrated the robbery. We hold that the ground thus raised for reversal is without merit. A review of the testimony reveals that the evidence of appellant’s guilt is legally sufficient. The manager at the store, Mr. Mike Malloy, identified the appellant as the person who committed the robbery. Mal-loy testified that appellant was in the store twice the same night, the robbery occurring on appellant’s second visit. Malloy stated that appellant was within a few feet of him and he was able to look right in his face.
Appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient seems centered upon the proposition that Malloy’s identifying testimony is based only upon the hat and coat which appellant was wearing at the time he was apprehended. These items were said to be the same as those worn by the robber on the occasion of the robbery two days earlier. If the garments were the only evidence identifying appellant as the robber, appellant’s argument might give cause for concern. However, the hat and coat were only corroborating evidence which tended to support Malloy’s basic evidence on identity that he recognized appellant directly as being the person who committed the robbery. At the time appellant was apprehended, he was in the company of a female companion. Shortly before the apprehension, appellant and his female companion were observed at the bus station by Mr. Malloy as he was driving by. Appar*170ently appellant was aware that Malloy had observed him, since the girl testified that appellant had told her that he had seen somebody who recognized him and that he had to leave. In her own words, the witness stated that “Eddie (appellant) said that there goes the man who he robbed his store that Thursday night and so he said the man recognized him and he recognized the man because he had glasses on.” It was shortly after this that appellant was arrested outside of Crump’s Tavern where his efforts to elude capture were unsuccessful.
The evidence amply supported the verdict of guilt. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.