CORNELL STATEN, 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.
Cornell Staten was convicted of assault with intent to commit a felony after being identified through police photographs and in-court testimony. On appeal, Staten challenged the admission of photographic identification evidence on the ground that no defense attorney was present during the identification process, but the court affirmed his conviction, holding such presence was not required.
The court held that the admission of photographic identification evidence was proper even without defense counsel present at the identification procedure. No reversible error was found, and the conviction was affirmed.
[1] Photographs submitted to a victim for identification purposes prior to the filing of an information are admissible into evidence.
[2] An in-court identification of a defendant is permissible even if the defendant's attorney was not present during a pre-trial photographic identification.
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“the trial court erred by admitting into evidence, over objection of defendant, photographs of the defendant and other persons which had been submitted to the victim for identification purposes prior to the filing of the information”
Statement of the defendant's primary contention on appeal regarding the admissibility of photographic identification evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStaten and another man approached the victim, a liquor store owner, at 4:30 A.M. Staten pointed a gun and fired three shots at the victim. The victim,…
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 Assault With Intent To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was informed against, tried before a jury and convicted of assault with intent to commit a felony. He was sentenced thereon to confinement for a period of ten years, with credit for certain jail time served. On this appeal by the defendant it is contended the trial court erred by admitting into evidence, over objection of defendant, photographs of the defendant and other persons which had been submitted to the victim for identification purposes prior to the filing of the information, and that the evidence relating to identification of the defendant was insufficient.
The facts disclosed in the record included the following. The incident occurred when the victim, owner of a liquor store, was about to enter the store at 4:30 o’clock A.M. to prepare for the business of the day, as was his custom on certain days. As he got out of his car, which he parked across the street from the store, he was approached by two black males. One of them, who was later identified as the defendant Staten, pointed a gun at the victim, and proceeded to fire three bullets into him. As said assailant then reached for the victim’s pocket, the latter, who was armed, shot that assailant four times. The victim drove himself to a hospital, where he was treated and survived. Within an hour the said Staten appeared at the hospital for treatment of his wounds, whereupon he was arrested on suspicion of the crime, by the police who had been notified thereof and were on the alert for such a wounded man to appear for treatment at the hospital.
After Staten’s arrest, but prior to the filing of an information against him, the victim identified Staten from photographs submitted to him by the police. An in-court identification of Staten was made by the victim at the trial.
The defendant did not file a motion to suppress the identification evidence, but moved to strike such evidence at trial on the ground that no attorney for the defendant Staten had been present at the time of the identification of him by the victim from photographs. We hold that contention to be without merit, and that the ruling of the trial court relating thereto was correct. See United States v. Roth, 2 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 1137, 1140; United States v. Ballard, 5 Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 127.
No reversible error having been shown the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frierson v. State, 303 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…. App. 1964, 161 So. 2d 578; Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 82; Baisden v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 194; Shif-rin v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 18; Lister v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 226 So. 2d 238; Staten v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 697; Rollins v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 541; Skold v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 263 So. 2d 627; United States v. Cooper, 5th Cir. 1973, 472 F. 2d 64; § 924.-33, Fla.Stat.…
-
United States v. ASH, 461 F.2d 92 (D.C. Cir. 1972)…ash.App. 860, 484 P. 2d 417, 419-420 (1971). . Kain v. State, 48 Wis.2d 71, 179 N.W. 2d 777, 782 (1970). . Reed v. Delaware, 281 A. 2d 142 (Del.Sup.Ct.1971); Commonwealth v. Geraway, 355 Mass. 433, 245 N.E. 2d 423, 427-428 (1969); Staten v. State, 248 So. 2d 697 (Fla.App.1971). See also McClain v. State, 247 Ark. 33, 444 S.W. 2d 99, 102-104 (1969); but see Cox v. State, 219 So. 2d 762, 765 (Fla.App.1969); People v. Rowell, 14 Mich.App. 190, 165 N.W. 2d 423, 426 (1968) (concurring opinion). . Commonwealth v…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Erwin Edward Ballard, 423 F.2d 127 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Roth, 430 F.2d 1137 (2d Cir. 1970)