Soto v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Soto v. State

232 So. 2d 455, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6847

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 10, 1970·No. No. 69-581·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, the defendant below, appeals from a conviction of the crime of robbery (hold up of a supermarket). On considering the appellant’s contentions, in the light of the record and briefs, we find no error, and affirm. The evidence as to identification was sufficient. Positive identification testimony was given at trial by several witnesses. In the circumstances disclosed the in-court identification testimony was not tainted by the witnesses’ prior out of court identification of the defendant. See Anderson v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 215 So.2d 618; Allen v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 444.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, the defendant below, appeals from a conviction of the crime of robbery (hold up of a supermarket). On considering the appellant’s contentions, in the light of the record and briefs, we find no error, and affirm. The evidence as to identification was sufficient. Positive identification testimony was given at trial by several witnesses. In the circumstances disclosed the in-court identification testimony was not tainted by the witnesses’ prior out of court identification of the defendant. See Anderson v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 215 So.2d 618; Allen v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 444.

Affirmed.

Soto v. State, 232 So. 2d 455, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6847 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

232 So. 2d 455 (Soto v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related