GEORGE ROBINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 identification testimony from a pre-indictment lineup and a confession given before indictment are admissible even without counsel present.
George Robinson was convicted of two counts of robbery. He appealed, challenging the admissibility of identification testimony from a pre-indictment p…
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 Admissibility Of Confessions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
George Robinson appeals his convictions on two counts of robbery.
The first contention raised by defendant concerns the introduction into evidence, over his objection, of testimony of several prosecution witnesses pertaining to their identification of him in a preindictment police lineup and their subsequent in-court identification. Defendant argues that this identification testimony was inadmissible because his counsel was not present at the police lineup and as authority cites to U. S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967) and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967).
We find Wade and Gilbert to be inapplicable. These cases are applicable to out-of-court identification situations after a defendant has been indicted or criminal proceedings have been initiated. See Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972). The record in the instant case reflects that defendant participated in the police lineup prior to being informed against. See Kirby, supra; Perkins v. State, 228 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1969); Robinson v. State, 237 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).
Defendant secondly contends that the court erred in admitting into evidence his confession given to a police officer after his arrest, but prior to the filing of an information because his counsel was not present. Defendant relies upon Massiah v. U. S., 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964).
We find the reliance upon Massiah misplaced because Massiah applies only to a defendant who has been indicted or informed against. Cf. U. S. v. Anderson, 523 F. 2d 1192, 1195 (5th Cir. 1975). Moreover, defendant does not allege that his confession was coerced and the officer to whom he confessed testified that defendant was read his Miranda rights and did not request an attorney. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the confession was admissible. Cf. U. S. v. De Loy, 421 F. 2d 900 (5th Cir. 1970).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Traylor v. State, 498 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ority opinion, I agree that the letters written to the Florida and Alabama judges were admissible. . Felder v. McCotter, 765 F. 2d 1245 (5th Cir.1985); Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964); Robinson v. State, 351 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977). . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). . Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. at -, fn. 6, 106 S.Ct. at 1409, fn. 6, 89 L.Ed.2d at 640, fn. 6. . E.g. United States v. Deloy, 421 F. 2d 900 (5th Cir.…
-
Robinson v. State, 378 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…jury. The evidence was overwhelming with regard to the charges upon which he was found guilty. We find the representation of Robinson to have been adequate and the order denying the motion to vacate is affirmed. Affirmed. . See Robinson v. State, 351 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). . That he was ripped off in that he gave $100 to one of the victims for drugs but did not receive any. He came back the next day and threatened this victim at gunpoint to return the money or to provide the drugs.…
-
O'Brien v. State, 479 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Perkins v. State, 228 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1969); Bonham v. State, 450 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Robinson v. State, 351 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). But see Sobczak v. State, 462 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967)
- Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1967)
- Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (U.S. 1964)
- Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (U.S. 1972)
- Dudley George Hanemann v. State, 228 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1969)
- United States v. Anderson, 523 F.2d 1192 (5th Cir. 1975)
- United States v. DE LOY, 421 F.2d 900 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Robinson v. State, 237 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)