RHONNIE SINGLETON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; JOE NATHAN WASHINGTON, 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.
In this joint trial appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions of two robbery defendants despite finding that a pretrial lineup was impermissibly suggestive and that certain extrajudicial statements raised Confrontation Clause concerns, holding that both errors were harmless because the challenged evidence was cumulative of uncontroverted evidence.
The pretrial lineup was impermissibly suggestive and the in-court identification was tainted, but admission of this evidence constituted harmless error because the witness testimony was cumulative of uncontroverted evidence. Similarly, any Bruton violations regarding the extrajudicial statements were harmless error as the statements merely corroborated other undisputed evidence.
[1] A lineup conducted shortly after an offense and prior to the filing of an information may be impermissibly suggestive, tainting subsequent in-court identifications unless…
[2] The erroneous admission of identification evidence constitutes harmless error when the testimony is cumulative of other properly admitted evidence.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 lineup in which appellants participated, held approximately two hours after the offense had been committed but prior to the filing of an information charging appellants with the offense, was impermissibly suggestive.”
Establishes that the court found the pretrial lineup violated constitutional protections against suggestive identification procedures.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Singleton and Washington were charged with robbery. Approximately two hours after the offense and before charges were filed, they participa…
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 Impermissibly Suggestive Lineup cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
We agree with appellants’ contention that a lineup in which appellants participated, held approximately two hours after the offense had been committed but prior to the filing of an information charging appellants with the offense, was impermis-sively suggestive. The in-court identification by the witness, Anna Tonissen, was thereby tainted, and it was not shown by clear and convincing evidence that her in-court identification was based upon an independent source of identification.
Anna Tonissen was not an eye-witness to the robbery. Her testimony merely placed appellants near the scene of the crime. Since both appellants, in statements properly introduced into evidence, and their witness Randolph admitted that appellants were near the scene of the robbery, Anna Tonissen’s testimony was cumulative. The introduction of the identification evidence was therefore harmless error. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149; Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178; United States v. Evans, 2d Cir. 1973, 484 F. 2d 1178; Souza v. Howard, 1st Cir. 1973, 488 F. 2d 462; Settle v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 288 So. 2d 511. See also Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208; and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705.
Appellants next contend that they were denied their constitutional rights of confrontation and cross-examination by the State’s use of certain extrajudicial, incriminating statements made in the absence of each other when neither appellant took the stand at their joint trial, in violation of the rule announced in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476.
When Detective Bebler began to testify in regard to the statements, defense counsel objected. The jury was removed from the courtroom and Detective Bebler’s testimony was proffered. Detective Bebler then testified without objection in the presence of the jury, but made no reference to the part of the respective statements of either defendant which referred to the other defendant by name. In other words, neither statement implicated the other defendant. Under these circumstances, Bruton does not control this case. Additionally, defense counsel did not renew their objection to the testimony regarding the statements after it had been decided to omit the portion of each statement that involved the other defendant. They, therefore, did not preserve their right to raise this point on appeal. Rankin v. State, Fla.1962, 143 So. 2d 193; Sellers v. State, Fla.App.3d 1968, 212 So. 2d 659; Simpson v. State, Fla.App.3d 1968, 211 So. 2d 862.
The statements referred to placed appellants together at the Eastgate Shopping Center where the robbery was committed. This evidence was merely cumulative of other uncontroverted evidence, which was even admitted by appellants’ own witness, Randolph. Therefore, the Bmton errors, if any, were harmless. Brown v. United States, supra. See also Horton v. State, Fla.App.2d 1973, 285 So. 2d 418; Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284; Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 92 S.Ct. 1056, 31 L.Ed.2d 340.
The evidence was sufficient to demonstrate the requisite intent to commit robbery, or to act as principals in the robbery. State v. Young, Fla.1968, 217 So. 2d 567; Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380.
The other points raised, on appeal are without merit.
The judgments and sentences appealed are
Affirmed.
McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cook v. State, 353 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…on v. State, 285 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), on rehearing the court re-examined its earlier reversal of a defendant’s rape conviction, and in light of the harmless error doctrine of Harrington affirmed the conviction. See also Singleton v. State, 303 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Thompson v. State, 300 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). We have, however, only recently reversed a criminal conviction because of a Bruton violation. Russell v. State, 349 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Since we believe the harml…
-
Dell v. State, 309 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…ing on his motions to suppress. The out-of-court photographic identification of Dell by the victim of the robbery was impermissively suggestive and should have been suppressed on the ground that it was tainted. Singleton v. State, Fla.App. 2d 1974, 303 So. 2d 420. The victim described the robber immediately to the police as approximately medium height, with a black mustache, black shoulder-length hair and black eyebrows. Dell was arrested the following day, his photograph taken, and placed in a photo-pak wi…
Authorities Cited (16 total)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967)
- Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1969)
- Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1967)
- Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1972)
- Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223 (U.S. 1973)
- Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1973)
- State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1968)
- Rankin v. State, 143 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1962)