Black v. State
| Decision Date | 07 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. LL-178,LL-178 |
| Citation | 383 So.2d 295 |
| Parties | Robert BLACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
J. Craig Williams of Williams & Stapp, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Miguel A. Olivella, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Robert Black challenges his conviction for armed robbery on four grounds: the trial court improperly denied his motions to suppress fingerprint evidence and analysis and to compel disclosure of fingerprint evidence, improperly denied discovery of certain police reports, failed to enforce a stipulation, and refused to grant a mistrial because of improper comments by the prosecutor during closing argument. We affirm.
After an armed robbery of a department store in Jacksonville, the police linked Black to the crime by comparing fingerprints found at the scene with fingerprints in their possession. Black filed a motion to compel the State to disclose and furnish the fingerprint evidence and a motion to exclude (suppress) the fingerprint analysis and latent and inked fingerprints. Both motions were denied.
Black contends that the trial court erred by placing the burden on him to prove issues raised in the motion to suppress and in refusing to allow him to discover documents he claims were material to the motion.
Considering the second aspect first, the record reveals that the motion to compel was directed to the fingerprint evidence intended to be used by the State at trial and by the experts in their analysis and comparison and that the evidence requested was provided. On appeal, Black urges that the original fingerprint card which was used to identify him should have been disclosed. The original fingerprint card was not used by the State at trial, nor was it used by the experts; thus, we decline to rule on this point since it was not properly presented to the trial court and preserved for appeal.
Regarding the burden of proof aspect of the first point on appeal, we note first of all that Black states in his brief that he alleged in his motion to suppress that the fingerprints on file had originally been seized as the result of an illegal arrest. The record, however, does not support this claim. The motion alleged, in pertinent part, only that the fingerprints "had been obtained from a prior encounter with the sheriff's office or an arrest" and "upon being arrested on a previous occasion."
This case is controlled by this Court's opinion in Sykes v. State, 329 So.2d 356 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which held that the motion itself was deficient for failure to allege that the prior arrest at which time the fingerprints were obtained was illegal and, therefore, the denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the case of Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969), does not hold that every time an arrest is illegal the fingerprints taken at the time must be suppressed, but requires the defendant to show that the arrest is the result of overreaching governmental misconduct. Where a motion to suppress an illegal search is at issue, the burden is on the moving party to make an initial showing that the search was invalid. Only when that initial showing is made does the burden shift to the State to prove that the search is valid. State v. Lyons, 293 So.2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). See also Bicking v. State, 293 So.2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Black having failed to make the initial showing of invalidity, the trial court properly denied his motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Olivares-Rangel
...see also Ortiz-Gonzalbo, 946 F.Supp. at 288-89; S.E.G. v. State, 645 So.2d 347, 348-49 (Ala. Crim.App.1994); Black v. State, 383 So.2d 295, 297 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980); Paulson, 257 So.2d at 304; Orum v. State, 46 Ala. App. 543, 245 So.2d 829, 830 (Ala.Crim. App.1970).8 But see United States......
-
State v. Setzler
...1180, 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 574 So.2d 143 (1990); Morales v. State, 407 So.2d 321, 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Black v. State, 383 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 392 So.2d 1371 (Fla.1980); Andress v. State, 351 So.2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Pineda v. State, No. 92-06-AP ......
-
Breedlove v. State
...those officers. See State v. Johnson, 284 So.2d 198 (Fla.1973); Lockhart v. State, 384 So.2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Black v. State, 383 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Dumas v. State, 363 So.2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 471 (Fla.1979); Pitts v. State, 362 So.2d 147 (F......
-
State v. Fortesa-Ruiz
...(Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Irons v. State, 498 So.2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Morales v. State, 407 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Black v. State, 383 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 392 So.2d 1371 (Fla.1980); Andress v. State, 351 So.2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA Affirmed. SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge, s......