RONNIE GILMORE, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed robbery conviction despite defendant's claim that pretrial identification procedure violated his constitutional rights, holding that the in-court identification was valid because it was based on the witness's independent recollection of the defendant from the crime scene.
An in-court identification is valid if based on the witness's independent recollection rather than suggestion implanted at a pretrial viewing, and the trial court properly admitted the identification here.
[1] An in-court identification satisfies constitutional requirements when the witness had an independent basis for recognizing the defendant from personal observation at the…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 test of the validity of an in-court identification is if the identification was based on the independent recollection of the witness, rather than the suggestion of identity implanted at the pretrial viewing, then the in-court identification is valid.”
Court stating the controlling legal standard for evaluating pretrial identification procedures.
Ronnie Gilmore was tried for robbery in Hillsborough County. Before trial, a sheriff's deputy showed state witnesses the courtroom to identify anyone …
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 Independent Recollection cases and more on FLexlaw
Ronnie Gilmore was tried for robbery in the Criminal Court of Record for Hills-borough County, Florida. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged.
Just before the trial began, while the jury was being selected, a sheriff’s deputy took the state witnesses to a door of the courtroom. The deputy asked the witnesses to look in and see if they recognized anyone in the courtroom. Ronnie Gilmore now claims that because he was the only Negro in the courtroom when this identification took place his constitutional right to a fair lineup was violated. Appellant Gilmore asks this court to reverse the trial court’s conviction and grant a new trial.
The test of the validity of an in-court identification is if the identification was based on the independent recollection of the witness, rather than the suggestion of identity implanted at the pretrial viewing, then the in-court identification is valid. United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 19 L.Ed.2d 1149; Gilbert v. California, 1967, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178; Avis v. State, Fla.App.1969, 21 So.2d 235.
The record here shows that the state’s witness was present when the crime was committed, and could identify Gilmore on the basis of the witness’ own observation of Gilmore.
Consequently, the test of Wade, Gilbert and Avis was met and the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.
The decision of the trial court is affirmed.
McNULTY, J., concurs.
MANN, J., concurs specially with opinion.
(concurring specially).
My brother Liles understates the evidence. There is ample evidence of positive identification by several witnesses, including an accomplice, that Gilmore was involved in this armed robbery. There was, further, no objection to reception of the testimony now questioned. I concur in the result but do not wish to suggest approval of the deputy’s act of taking witnesses to the door of a courtroom in which a single black man is seated in the midst of many white people and asking them if they see anyone inside who looks familiar. This was unnecessary to the state’s case, which is ample, and it tends to discredit our respect for law.
MANN, Judge
(concurring specially).
My brother Liles understates the evidence. There is ample evidence of positive identification by several witnesses, including an accomplice, that Gilmore was involved in this armed robbery. There was, further, no objection to reception of the testimony now questioned. I concur in the result but do not wish to suggest approval of the deputy’s act of taking witnesses to the door of a courtroom in which a single black man is seated in the midst of many white people and asking them if they see anyone inside who looks familiar. This was unnecessary to the state’s case, which is ample, and it tends to discredit our respect for law.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hanks v. State, 305 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…f the men who committed the robbery. In our view, the appellants have not shown any taint to the identification. See, Rivers v. State, Fla.1969, 226 So. 2d 337, 339-340; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1972, 263 So. 2d 295; Gilmore v. State, Fla.App.1970, 240 So. 2d 179. As we perceive the appellants’ argument under this last point, it seems that they are making a novel contention. Appellants concede that there were no irregularities or illegalities in the line-up which was held in this case. Rather, they argue t…
-
Young v. State, 249 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…[*757] PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of Avis v. State, 221 So. 2d 235 (Fla.App.1969), and Gilmore v. State, 240 So. 2d 179 (Fla.App.1970). CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967)
- Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1967)