Soto v. State

232 So. 2d 455, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6847
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 10, 1970
DocketNo. 69-581
StatusPublished

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

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

Related

Anderson v. State
215 So. 2d 618 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Allen v. State
219 So. 2d 444 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 So. 2d 455, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soto-v-state-fladistctapp-1970.