Morris v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Morris v. State

184 So. 2d 199, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5643

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 17, 1966

DocketNo. 65

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 184 So. 2d 199 (Morris v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morris v. State, 184 So. 2d 199, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5643 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Chief Judge.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of armed robbery. All of his points on appeal have been determined in Florida, except one, adversely to him. Moffett v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 408; Williams v. State, 1940, 143 Fla. 826, 197 So. 562; Range v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 534.

Appellant contends that his constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination was violated when he was required, in a police station line-up, to wear the red plaid jacket identified by the witnesses as the jacket worn by him while committing the crime. While we find no Florida decision on this specific point, the overwhelming majority of other jurisdictions hold that such action does not constitute a violation of his constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. See Holt v. United States, 1910, 218 U.S. 245, 31 S.Ct. 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021; Crenshaw v. State, 1932, 225 Ala. 346, 142 So. 669; People v. Lopez, 1963, 60 Cal.2d 223, 32 Cal.Rptr. 424, 384 P.2d 16; People v. Pecho, 1936, 362 Ill. 568, 200 N.E. 860; Ross v. State, 1932, 204 Ind. 281, 182 N.E. 865; Barrett v. State, 1950, 190 Tenn. 366, 229 S.W.2d 516, 18 A.L.R.2d 789; Richardson v. State, 1934, 168 Miss. 788, 151 So. 910; White v. State, 1901, Tex.Cr.App., 62 S.W. 749; and Annot. 18 A.L.R.2d 796 (1951).

Affirmed.

WALDEN, J., and KANNER (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

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

SMITH, Chief Judge.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of armed robbery. All of his points on appeal have been determined in Florida, except one, adversely to him. Moffett v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 408; Williams v. State, 1940, 143 Fla. 826, 197 So. 562; Range v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 534.

Appellant contends that his constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination was violated when he was required, in a police station line-up, to wear the red plaid jacket identified by the witnesses as the jacket worn by him while committing the crime. While we find no Florida decision on this specific point, the overwhelming majority of other jurisdictions hold that such action does not constitute a violation of his constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. See Holt v. United States, 1910, 218 U.S. 245, 31 S.Ct. 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021; Crenshaw v. State, 1932, 225 Ala. 346, 142 So. 669; People v. Lopez, 1963, 60 Cal.2d 223, 32 Cal.Rptr. 424, 384 P.2d 16; People v. Pecho, 1936, 362 Ill. 568, 200 N.E. 860; Ross v. State, 1932, 204 Ind. 281, 182 N.E. 865; Barrett v. State, 1950, 190 Tenn. 366, 229 S.W.2d 516, 18 A.L.R.2d 789; Richardson v. State, 1934, 168 Miss. 788, 151 So. 910; White v. State, 1901, Tex.Cr.App., 62 S.W. 749; and Annot. 18 A.L.R.2d 796 (1951).

Affirmed.

WALDEN, J., and KANNER (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 So. 2d 199, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-state-fladistctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack