Taylor v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Taylor v. State

199 So. 2d 517, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4902

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 31, 1967

DocketNo. 66-687

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 199 So. 2d 517 (Taylor 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

Taylor v. State, 199 So. 2d 517, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4902 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were convicted of robbery in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County after a non-jury trial. They were jointly tried and have jointly prosecuted this appeal. The sole question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence as to the identification of the appellants as the persons who committed the crime.

The appellants rely for reversal upon Ross v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 187 and cases cited therein. On that appeal this Court held the evidence of identity insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision recognized the rule that in criminal prosecutions, a verdict of guilty will ordinarily not be disturbed where there are conflicts in the evidence as to the identification of the person charged with the crime, since such conflicts are for the jury to determine. Ray v. State, 159 Fla. 101, 31 So.2d 156, 172 A.L.R. 726. The decision applied an exception to the rule which is that where the record demonstrates that the identification witness or witnesses did not have a sufficient opportunity to observe the features, voice, mannerisms or demeanor of the defendant, an appellate court may reverse upon a holding that the evidence is insufficient.

The facts of this case fall within the general rule and not the exception. The record reveals that the victim who identified the appellants had an opportunity and did observe them for some time prior to the assault and robbery.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were convicted of robbery in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County after a non-jury trial. They were jointly tried and have jointly prosecuted this appeal. The sole question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence as to the identification of the appellants as the persons who committed the crime.

The appellants rely for reversal upon Ross v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 187 and cases cited therein. On that appeal this Court held the evidence of identity insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision recognized the rule that in criminal prosecutions, a verdict of guilty will ordinarily not be disturbed where there are conflicts in the evidence as to the identification of the person charged with the crime, since such conflicts are for the jury to determine. Ray v. State, 159 Fla. 101, 31 So.2d 156, 172 A.L.R. 726. The decision applied an exception to the rule which is that where the record demonstrates that the identification witness or witnesses did not have a sufficient opportunity to observe the features, voice, mannerisms or demeanor of the defendant, an appellate court may reverse upon a holding that the evidence is insufficient.

The facts of this case fall within the general rule and not the exception. The record reveals that the victim who identified the appellants had an opportunity and did observe them for some time prior to the assault and robbery.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 So. 2d 517, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-state-fladistctapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack