JOHN WESLEY WATTS, EARBY LEE JOHNSON AND HENRY FORD, APPELLANTS,
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 the trial court erred in suppressing fingerprint evidence offered by the defense as alibi evidence.
Appellants were charged with robbery and kidnapping. The defense sought to introduce fingerprint evidence from the victim's truck, which did not match…
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 Alibi Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in refusing to allow them to present certain fingerprint evidence to the jury. We agree and reverse.
The State charged appellants with robbery and kidnapping. At trial, David Glenn testified that one evening when he stopped at a convenience store for gasoline, three men, whom he identified as appellants, forced him to take them with him in his truck. They made him drive to a deserted phosphate mine where they pushed him out of the truck, took his wallet, and drove off.
The State produced one other witness who saw appellants with Glenn at the convenience store. Appellants produced three witnesses who said that appellants were with them at the time the kidnapping and robbery occurred.
Prior to trial, the court granted the State’s motion to suppress the use of fingerprint evidence by appellants who wished to introduce it as circumstantial evidence to support the defense of alibi. The fingerprints which the police lifted from the truck did not match those of Glenn or any of the appellants. In granting the motion to suppress, the trial court erroneously concluded that such evidence was irrelevant.
As this court held in Corley v. State, 335 So. 2d 849 (Fla.2d DCA 1976), such evidence was clearly admissible for the jury to consider in deciding whether someone other than appellants committed the robbery and kidnapping. Moreover, on this record, we cannot say the error was harmless to appellants.
We reverse and remand the case for a new trial.
GRIMES, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moreno v. State, 418 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…965); Commonwealth v. Keizer, 385 N.E. 2d 1001 (Mass. 1979). Where evidence tends, in any way, even indirectly, to prove a defendant’s innocence, it is error to deny its admission. Chandler v. State, 366 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Watts v. State, 354 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In Commonwealth v. Keizer, supra, the court permitted defendant to show that crimes of a similar nature had been committed by some other person so closely connected in point of time and method of operation as to cast doubt upon t…
-
Whitfield v. State, 479 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…la. 3d DCA 1978), supports his position on this issue. There is indeed a statement in Chandler that where evidence tends in any way, even indirectly, to prove a defendant’s innocence, it is error to deny its admission. Chandler cites Watts v. State, 354 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), as the authority it paraphrases for this principle. However, Chandler also states that the trial court enjoys a certain discretion in deciding admissibility of evidence, and reconciles this principle with the other by saying the…1 / 2
-
Chandler v. State, 366 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…rsible error. Cf. the principle of law in Rodriguez v. State, 327 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Nevertheless, where evidence tends in any way, even indirectly, to prove a defendant’s innocence, it is error to deny its admission. See Watts v. State, 354 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The true test then is whether the tendered condensed version of the taped conversation was relevant to the defense presented. The defendants have failed to present to the trial court or to this court any reasonable theory upon wh…
Authorities Cited
- Corley v. State, 335 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)