JOHN S. OJA, 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.
John Oja appealed his conviction for uttering a forged check, challenging the trial court's admission of a Regiscope photograph. The court affirmed, holding that Regiscope photographs are admissible under the same rules as ordinary photographs when properly authenticated by witness testimony.
The court held that Regiscope photographs are admissible under the same rules governing ordinary photographs, and that the photograph was properly admitted because it was authenticated by witness testimony establishing its relevance to identifying the person who uttered the forged check.
[1] Regiscope photographs are admissible under the same rules governing the admissibility of ordinary photographs.
[2] The admissibility of a photograph is conditioned upon its identification by a witness as a portrayal of relevant facts and verification by that witness based on personal…
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“The prime condition as to the admissibility of a photograph is that it be identified by a witness as a portrayal of certain facts relevant to the issue, and verified by such witness on personal knowledge as a correct representation of these facts.”
Establishes the foundational rule for photograph admissibility that the court applied to the Regiscope photograph
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 23, 1973, a Pantry Pride employee accepted a check payable to John Oja on a Spartan Paving Company account. The employee used a Regiscope c…
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 Uttering A Forged Check cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant seeks review of his judgment and sentence based upon a jury verdict of guilty of uttering a forged check in violation of F.S., § 831.02 F.S.A. The only question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in admitting over objection a Regiscope photograph into evidence.
This question appears to be one of first impression in the appellate courts of Florida, although courts in several other jurisdictions have treated the admissibility of Regiscope photographs. In such cases, it has been held that the same rules governing the admissibility of ordinary photographs should be applied to photographs taken by a Regiscope camera; State v. Tatum, 1961, 58 Wash.2d 73, 360 P. 2d 754; Sisk v. State, 1963, 232 Md. 155, 192 A. 2d 108; Sisk v. State, 1964, 236 Md. 589, 204 A. 2d 684. See Barker v. People, 1965, 158 Colo. 381, 407 P. 2d 34.
In Furr v. State, Fla.App.2d 1970, 229 So. 2d 269, this court stated:
“The prime condition as to the admissibility of a photograph is that it be identified by a witness as a portrayal of certain facts relevant to the issue, and verified by such witness on personal knowledge as a correct representation of these facts.”
Photographs may be relevant to the issues either independently or as corroborative of other evidence, and may be used to establish identity. Young v. State, Fla. 1970, 234 So. 2d 341; Henninger v. State, Fla.1971, 251 So. 2d 862; State v. Wright, Fla.1972, 265 So. 2d 361; Bauldree v. State, Fla. 1973, 284 So. 2d 196. See also Talley v. State, 1948, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So. 2d 201; Cf. Dyken v. State, Fla. 1956, 89 So. 2d 866.
In the case sub judice, Mrs. Christian-son, an employee at Pantry Pride, testified that on January 23, 1973, between 6:30 and 7:00 p. m. she accepted a check payable to John Oja on the account of Spartan Paving Company. She said that she gave the person an identification card to fill out, put the check into a machine which stamped a number on it, then placed the check and the card underneath the camera and “took a picture of the card, the check and him,” by pulling a lever down on a little machine. The number, stamped on the original check given to her by the man identifying himself as John Oja, appears in the picture. She identified the original check as the one she had cashed because it has her stamp and her initials on the back, and the identification card because it has her initials on the bottom. She stated that the picture accurately represents the original check and identification card, but she was unable to swear, independent of the check and the picture, that it was an accurate representation of the person standing in front of her at the time she took his picture.
However, before the picture had been admitted into evidence, the owner of Spartan Paving Company, Joel Faulk, testified that John Oja was a former employee of Spartan Paving and left his employment on January 23, 1973, without giving notice. He identified the check as being a company check, and denied making any of the entries on the check which was signed “Joe Fauk.” Mr. Faulk made an in-court identification of John Oja, and positively identified the person in the picture as Oja, stating that the picture represents the way John Oja looked in January.
The testimony of these two witnesses was sufficient to authenticate the photograph; City of Miami v. McCorkle, 1941, 145 Fla. 109, 199 So. 575; State v. Tatum, supra. In view of their testimony it was not necessary to call “experts” or persons responsible for installation and maintenance of the camera; Mikus v. United States, 2d Cir. 1970, 433 F. 2d 719. The Regiscope photograph was properly admitted into evidence as being relevant to the issue of establishing the identity of the person uttering the forged check.
The judgment appealed is, therefore,
Affirmed.
McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Arnulfo Zapata, 601 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…that the photograph was a fair and accurate representation of a person in distress. It was not necessary that Perez authenticate the photograph because any witness with knowledge may lay the foundational facts necessary for admittance. Oja v. State, 292 So. 2d 71, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Accordingly, the photograph was admissable to assist the jury in understanding the expert’s testimony. Belger v. State, 171 So. 2d 574, 576 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 176 So. 2d 510 (Fla.1965); City of Jacksonville, 108 So…
-
McNAIR v. State, 353 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of Campbell v. State, 155 Fla. 359, 20 So. 2d 127 (1944); Spencer v. State, 133 So. 2d 729 (Fla.1961); Burton v. State, 207 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Reis v. State, 248 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Oja v. State, 292 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Garmise v. State, 311 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Rodriguez v. State, 327 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).…
Authorities Cited
- Talley v. State, 160 Fla. 593 (Fla. 1948)
- Young v. State, 234 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 1970)
- State v. Wright, 265 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1972)
- Mikus v. United States, 433 F.2d 719 (2d Cir. 1970)
- Bauldree v. State, 284 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1973)
- The City of Miami v. McCorkle, 145 Fla. 109 (Fla. 1940)
- Dyken v. State, 89 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 1956)
- Henninger v. State, 251 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1971)
- Mercer McClain Furr v. State, 229 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)