Akridge v. State
| Decision Date | 28 December 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D06-2610.,2D06-2610. |
| Citation | 970 So.2d 917 |
| Parties | Dianna L. AKRIDGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John C. Fisher, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Dianna Akridge appeals her convictions for possession of cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and giving false identification to a law enforcement officer. Akridge raises four issues in this appeal. We find merit only in her contention that the trial court erred in ruling that identity would not be an issue in the case, thus prohibiting the State from presenting evidence of the accused's identity.
A jury trial commenced on May 8, 2006, at which time the jury was selected and sworn, and the trial was continued until May 10. Akridge did not appear on May 10, but the trial continued in her absence. In ruling that the trial would continue despite Akridge's absence, the court also ruled that identity could not be raised as an issue because Akridge "waived this particular defense through nonattendance." During the presentation of its case, the State sought guidance from the court regarding the questioning of its witness on the issue of Akridge's identity. The court reiterated that identity was not an issue, and it declared that the State would risk a mistrial by eliciting identification testimony and that the defense attorney would risk disbarment if he suggested that the State failed to identify the suspect.
The burden is upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of the alleged crime including the identity of the defendant. See State v. Freeman, 380 So.2d 1288 (Fla.1980) (). Here, consistent with the standard instructions,1 the trial court instructed the jury that the State had the burden of proving the defendant's identity:
To overcome a defendant's presumption of innocence, the State always has the burden to prove that the crime or crimes being charged were, in fact, committed and that the defendant is the person who committed the crime. The defendant is never required to present evidence nor prove anything.
Despite giving this instruction, the trial court deprived the parties of the opportunity to prove or challenge at trial that Dianna Akridge is the person who committed the crimes. Thus, the jury was deprived of necessary evidence tending to prove or disprove an essential element of the case.
In ruling that Akridge had waived the issue of identity by not appearing on the second day of trial, the trial court apparently was concerned that the State would be unable to prove identity due to Akridge's absence from the courtroom. In its order denying Akridge's motion for new trial, the court wrote:
The Court's most serious disagreement with Defendant comes with the motion for new trial, which complains of the Court having ruled that identity was not an issue. Certainly it is expected that the state, in every case, will ask the arresting officer(s) or eyewitness(es), "Do you see that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ploof
...asserting that the perpetrator of the crimes and the defendant, who was not present, shared the same name. See Akridge v. State, 970 So.2d 917, 918 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2007). We agree with the State's assertion that when there is no contrary evidence offered by the defendant in a criminal case......
-
Mitchell v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corrs.
...the crimes. The prosecution carried the burden to prove all elements of the crimes, including the identity of Mitchell. Akridge v. State, 970 So.2d 917, 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing State v. Freeman, 380 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 1980)). A maintenance supervisor discovered a broken window in the r......
-
State v. Lane
...the charged crime is an essential element that the government must always prove beyond a reasonable doubt.”); Akridge v. State, 970 So.2d 917, 918 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2007) (“The burden is upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of the alleged crime including the ......
-
K.T.B. v. State
...that the defendant on trial was indeed the party responsible for the criminal offense that is being prosecuted. See Akridge v. State, 970 So. 2d 917, 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("The burden is upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of the alleged crime including t......
-
The trial (conduct of trial, jury instructions, verdict)
...(See this case for citations to cases discussing how the state can prove identity when the defendant does not appear.) Akridge v. State, 970 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) The examination and challenge of jurors is a critical stage of a criminal trial where defendant’s presence is required. ......