MORRIS MOORE AND CHARLES MOORE, APPELLANTS,
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.
The court held that while admitting police testimony regarding photographic identification was error, it was harmless error given the strong in-court identification by the victims.
Defendants were convicted of robbery after victims identified them from photographs and at trial. Police officers testified that the victims had selec…
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 Cumulative Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a consolidated appeal. Both defendants were convicted of robbery and sentenced to 25 years in prison. We affirm the judgments and sentences.
The two victims were exposed to' the defendants for approximately ten minutes during the course of the robbery. They later identified the defendant from photographs shown to them by the police authorities. At trial the victims positively identified the defendants, but made no mention of their intervening identification of the defendants’ photographs.
At trial two police officers in effect corroborated the identification by testifying that the victims selected photographs of the defendants from those shown to the victims by the officers. It was error to admit the police testimony. Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 452; Willis v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 208 So.2d 458, affirmed, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 106. However, such admission was harmless error. Section 59.041, F.S.1971, F.S.A. This is true because the victims had ample time to observe the defendants and their identifying characteristics during the course of the robbery events. Their testimony at trial was strong and unequivocal and hence the police officers’ testimony was merely cumulative.
Evidence of collateral crimes was properly admissible here to show similar motive, intent and method of operation. Williams v. State, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 654.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Loftin v. State, 273 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1973)…trict judge dissenting with opinion, has apparently not found support in subsequent district court opinions over the state. Willis v. State, 208 So. 2d 458, 460 (Fla.App.1st 1968); Anderson v. State, 230 So. 2d 704 (Fla.App.2d 1970); Moore v. State, 267 So. 2d 850 (Fla.App.4th 1972). The pertinent comment in the opinion in Jones refers to a definite statement made in the prosecutor’s opening “to the effect that appellant had been identified by mixing his picture with other mug shots” and thereby having conve…
-
State v. Ciongoli, 313 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…. State, 217 So. 2d 106 (Fla.1968) ; but only in corroboration of the identifying witness at trial, Johnson v. State, 249 So. 2d 452 (4th DCA Fla.1971) ; although its erroneous admission as substantive evidence may be harmless error, Moore v. State, 267 So. 2d 850 (4th DCA Fla.1972).…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Johnson v. State, 249 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Willis v. State, 208 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Willis v. State, 217 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1968)