Harrell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harrell v. State

728 So. 2d 284, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1281, 1999 WL 68907

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 10, 1999·No. No. 98-490·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no merit in the appellant’s argument that the show-up identification was defective. See Grant v. State, 390 So.2d 341 (Fla.1980). Notwithstanding the appellant’s argument to the contrary, the state’s evidence prior to the show-up identification was clearly sufficient to establish probable cause in support of the appellant’s arrest so that even if we were to find merit in the appellant’s argument, it would not taint the rest of the state’s evidence. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). See also State v. Cortez, 705 So.2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We find no merit in the appellant’s argument that the show-up identification was defective. See Grant v. State, 390 So.2d 341 (Fla.1980). Notwithstanding the appellant’s argument to the contrary, the state’s evidence prior to the show-up identification was clearly sufficient to establish probable cause in support of the appellant’s arrest so that even if we were to find merit in the appellant’s argument, it would not taint the rest of the state’s evidence. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). See also State v. Cortez, 705 So.2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Affirmed.

Harrell v. State, 728 So. 2d 284, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1281, 1999 WL 68907 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

728 So. 2d 284 (Harrell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related