MARK R. HAMILTON, 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.
Hamilton was convicted of forging a credit card charge slip based on in-court witness identification. The court reversed because the trial court failed to suppress the identification testimony despite admittedly impermissibly suggestive police procedures during photographic identification, where an officer improperly influenced the witness to select Hamilton's photograph.
The court held that in-court identification testimony must be suppressed unless the state demonstrates that the identification rests upon an independent and untainted foundation. When impermissibly suggestive police procedures are shown, the burden shifts to the state to qualify its witness by proving the in-court identification is not merely a product of the officer's improper suggestion.
[1] An impermissibly suggestive police identification procedure requires suppression of in-court identification unless the state demonstrates an independent and untainted fou…
[2] The burden shifts to the state to qualify a witness when impermissibly suggestive police procedures have tainted an identification.
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“We believe that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States require the suppression of this testimony unless and until the state has demonstrated that the in-court identification of the defendant rests upon an independent and untainted foundation.”
Establishes the legal standard requiring suppression unless the state proves independent origin of in-court identification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAbout a week after a forged charge slip was discovered, a sales clerk viewed photographs of five men and selected Hamilton's picture. Four days later,…
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 Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
MANN, Judge (Ret.).
Hamilton was convicted of forging a credit card charge slip on the identification of the sales clerk under circumstances which present a question not of credibility, as the state contends, but of constitutional law. About a week after the sale was made it was discovered that the charge slip was forged and the sales clerk was shown photographs of five men from which she selected that of the appellant. Four days later she expressed some doubt and asked to see the photographs again. On the sec ond occasion she narrowed the possible suspects down to two and advised the officer that those two were very much alike. Asked to select one of the two, she selected the picture of another person. The officer then indicated his opinion that she had selected the right photograph on the first occasion and suggested that she try again. The court denied a motion to suppress stating:
“The Court is of the opinion that the proof proffered on behalf of the motion to suppress evidence is insufficient to meet the test required for the suppression of in-court identification, in that the procedure followed at the first examination, the photographs were in no way impermissibly suggestive or in any way suggested to taint the record, while the procedure followed in the second photographic identification may be reprehensible and would have been impermissibly suggestive if it had occurred uncontra-dictedly at the first identification. Make that ‘might have been’ rather than ‘would have been.’ ”
We believe that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States require the suppression of this testimony unless and until the state has demonstrated that the in-court identification of the defendant rests upon an independent and untainted foundation.1 The admitted conduct of the investigating officer was impermis-sibly suggestive. This much is conceded by all parties, but the fact that the witness unhesitatingly chose Hamilton’s picture from the array on the first occasion persuaded the trial judge that what counts as evidence is the identification which takes place in the courtroom. In the absence of evidence of impropriety, this is, of course, true. The state is at liberty to adduce testimony that the defendant was the guilty party by seeking identification in court unless it is clear from the totality of the circumstances that impermissibly suggestive police procedures have tainted that identification. Upon such a showing the burden shifts to the state to qualify its witness. It is then at liberty to do so, but must first show that the in-court identification rests upon an independent foundation and is not merely the witness’ recollection of the investigating officer’s suggestion.2 We cannot treat the error as harmless because this is not a case in which the identity of the defendant is otherwise established,3 or in which the opportunity to know the identity of the suspect was so great and the identification so clear that police impropriety thereafter did not raise a question of deprivation of due process when all of the circumstances are considered. 4
Reversed and remanded.
McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur. . United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149; Gilbert v. California, 1967, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178; Stovall v. Denno, 1967, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199.
. Foster v. Calif., 1969, 394 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402; Cribbs v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 297 So. 2d 335. See also Wall, Eyewitness Identification in Criminal Cases (1965).
. See Bryan v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 290 So. 2d 515.
. Ward v. Wainwright, 5th Cir. 1971, 450 F. F. 2d 409. See also Settle v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 288 So. 2d 511.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beauford White v. State, 403 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1981)…Ed.2d 1178 (1967); Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). . Baxter v. State, 355 So. 2d 1234 (Fla.2d DCA), cert. denied, 365 So. 2d 709 (Fla.1978); Gibbs v. State, 344 So. 2d 621 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Hamilton v. State, 303 So. 2d 656 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). . Subsequent to defendant’s trial, subsection (5)(i) has been added to the list of aggravating circumstances set forth in section 921.141, Florida Statutes (1979). Under this subsection it is an aggravating circumstance if: The…
-
State v. Freber, 366 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1978)…f the identification were unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification. See Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402 (1969); Dell v. State, 309 So. 2d 52 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Hamilton v. State, 303 So. 2d 656 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). . The new Florida Evidence Code, which takes effect July 1, 1979, provides that this testimony is admissible as non-hearsay if the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the identification. §…
-
State v. Sepulvado, 362 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…identification. All of the identifi [*333] cations were held inadmissible, the Court observing that the identification was “all but inevitable” under the circumstances. 394 U.S. at 443, 89 S.Ct. at 1129, 22 L.Ed.2d at 406. (2) In Hamilton v. State, 303 So. 2d 656 (Fla.2d DCA 1974) this court held that a photographic identification of the defendant was impermissibly suggestive and tainted a later in-court identification. In that case, the victim picked appellant’s photo out of a photo pack of five. However, f…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1967)
- Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1967)
- Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (U.S. 1969)
- Settle v. State, 288 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Blue v. Beahrs, 297 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Cribbs v. State, 297 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Bryan v. State, 290 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)