NATHANIEL HOUSTON, 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.
Nathaniel Houston was convicted of robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting police mugshots into evidence, which violated the defendant's right to a fair trial.
The court held that admission of the police mugshots constituted reversible error. The court noted that while the admission of such photographs was conceded to be error, it was not harmless error. The court did not reach the merits of the second and third points on appeal due to the reversible error already identified.
[1] The admission of police "mugshots" showing a date prior to the crimes charged constitutes reversible error.
[2] A trial court errs in refusing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses when the information alleges and the evidence establishes the required elements for such i…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the introduction of the photographs, clearly identifiable in this case as "mugshots" and showing a date prior to the date of the crimes charged in this matter, into evidence constituted reversible error”
Establishes the core holding that admission of mugshots is reversible error, not harmless error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHouston was charged with robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime. At trial, the prosecution introduced photograp…
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 Unlawful Possession Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, defendant below, appeals a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a jury verdict on the charges of robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. We reverse.
In his second point on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence certain photographs which were clearly and unmistakably police “mugshots,” in violation of his right to a fair and impartial trial.
It is conceded that the admission of the “mugshots” was error; however, appellee contends that it was harmless error. Our review of the record in this case leads us to the conclusion that the introduction of the photographs, clearly identifiable in this case as “mugshots” and showing a date prior to the date of the crimes charged in this matter, into evidence constituted reversible error. See, e. g., United States v. Harrington, 490 F. 2d 487 (2d Cir. 1973); Barnes v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 365 F. 2d 509 (1966); Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959); and Mancebo v. State, 350 So. 2d 1098 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). Compare State v. Rucker, 330 So. 2d 470 (Fla.1976). We note, however, that if the photographs are properly cropped this objection could be alleviated.
Appellant in his first point on appeal contends that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on (1) aggravated assault and (2) simple assault, as lesser included offenses of armed robbery, where the information alleged and the evidence established the elements required to make the giving of such instructions mandatory.
Our review of the record also leads us to the conclusion that the instructions requested by appellant were within category four of the instructions outlined by the Supreme Court of Florida in Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla.1968) [hereinafter cited as Brown ]. Having met the test announced in Brown, it was error for the trial court not to give the requested instructions; however, because of our determination above of appellant’s second point on appeal, it is unnecessary for us to. determine whether this error was harmless or reversible. See State v. Abreau, Case no. 52,064 (Fla., opinion filed May 26, 1978) [quashing this court’s decision in Abreau v. State, 347 So. 2d 819 (Fla.3d DCA 1977)].
Appellant’s third point on appeal is that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence references of collateral crimes totally irrelevant to the crimes charged where the sole probative value of these references was to demonstrate his propensity to commit criminal acts. Because of our determination above of appellant’s second point on appeal, it is also unnecessary for us to determine this point on appeal. The problem raised by this point on appeal may be appropriately dealt with by the trial judge in his discretion upon retrial of the case.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D'Anna v. State, 453 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…The law is, of course, clear that the admission into evidence, or even the mere mention, of “mug shots” constitutes error. Whitehead v. State, 279 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Mancebo v. State, 350 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Houston v. State, 360 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). This is so because “an accused’s right to a fair and impartial jury is violated when the jury is improperly made aware of [a] defendant’s arrest for unrelated crimes ...” Duncan v. State, 450 So. 2d 242, 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).…1 / 2
-
Duncan v. State, 450 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ferring to a pri- or conviction, the Supreme Court of Florida in Sims v. State, 444 So. 2d 922 (Fla.1983), had held that such vague reference to other possible criminal activity was not so prejudicial as to require a new trial. Cf. Houston v. State, 360 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (although the court ruled that the introduction of photographs clearly [*246] identifiable as mug shots, showing a date prior to the date of the crimes charged, constituted reversible error, the court stated that if such photograp…
-
Fuster v. State, 480 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…by means of other testimony suggest a prior arrest of the accused. Walker v. State, 473 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Duncan v. State, 450 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); see Betsy v. State, 368 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); cf. Houston v. State, 360 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Police possession of such photographs alone does not necessarily convey to the [*175] jury that a defendant has committed prior offenses or has previously been in trouble with the police, particularly where a curative instruction…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- Barnes v. United States, 365 F.2d 509 (D.C. Cir. 1966)
- United States v. Harrington, 490 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1973)
- State v. Rucker, 330 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 1976)
- Mancebo v. State, 350 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Abreau v. State, 347 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)