RICHARD C. HOWE, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,

v.

SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

• Leronnie Lee Walton v. State, 208 So. 3d 60 (Fla. 2016)
  …l, 388 U.S. at 302, 87 S.Ct. 1967; Fitzpatrick, 900 So. 2d at 517. In concluding that the first prong is met because “the identification procedure employed in this case was suggestive,” majority op. at 65, the majority relies on State v. Sepulvado, 362 So. 2d 324, 326-27 (Fla. 2d [*74] DCA 1978). In Sepulvado, the Second District found “that the trial court could have properly concluded that the photo display was suggestive” because by giving the photos of Sepulvado and his two code-fendants to the victim se…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Brown v. State, 397 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
  …ses. Appellants now argue that the denial of those motions constituted error. Suppression of an out-of-court identification is mandated where the procedures, under the totality of the circumstances, are impermissibly suggestive. State v. Sepulvado, 362 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The trial court concluded that the methods employed were not impermissi-bly suggestive and such finding comes to us with a presumption of correctness. Identification procedures, although suggestive, are not impermissibly so unles…
• McLEAN v. State, 754 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
  …are troubled that the opinion testimony was, in essence, a comment on the victim’s credibility and was used as such by the prosecutor in closing arguments. It is the jury’s function to determine the credibility of witnesses. See State v. Sepulvado, 362 So. 2d 324, 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (“The believability or credibility of a witness ... [is] normally the exclusive or peculiar function of the jury.”). We conclude that the prejudicial effect of this evidence substantially outweighed its probative value in as…

Authorities Cited

• Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
• Howe v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., 345 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)