CHESTER ARTHUR DELL, 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.
The court held that an out-of-court photographic identification was impermissibly suggestive and tainted, requiring suppression.
The victim identified the appellant from a photo-pak after the robbery. The photo-pak contained notations that emphasized the appellant's photograph, …
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 Tainted Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Dell appeals his judgment and sentence, after having pled nolo contendere to a charge of armed robbery, reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s ruling 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 with four others. These were shown to the victim, who immediately selected Dell’s picture as the robber. All of the subjects had shoulder-length hair, but only one of the other subjects had a mustache. Each of the pictures had notations on the front, such as “Grand Larceny,” “Fugitive Mich.” The picture of the other subject with a mustache had the notation “Poss. of marijuana,” while Dell’s picture was the only one with the notation “A/R no bond,” indicating that he was the only one charged with armed robbery.
Dell’s photograph was thus emphasized and singled out, and as a result of this unfair procedure the likelihood of misidentification was substantial. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247; Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402; Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387; Singleton, supra.
The judgment appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded to the lower court with directions to vacate the sentence, set aside the plea and permit appellant to plead anew.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
BOARDMAN and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968)
- Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1970)
- Foster v. California, 394 U.S. 440 (U.S. 1969)
- Rhonnie Singleton v. State, 303 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)