Chaney v. State
| Decision Date | 20 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 41230,41230 |
| Citation | 267 So.2d 65 |
| Parties | Cornelius Lewis CHANEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
William C. Owen, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction in a rape case in which the verdict of the jury contained no recommendation of mercy and the Appellant, Cornelius Lewis Chaney, was sentenced to death.
The Appellant raises three points for our consideration as follows:
From the transcript of the evidence it appears: Patricia Hall (the prosecutrix herein), aged 14, went from her home on her bicycle in Panama City, Florida on Sunday, November 16, 1969, about 8:30 P.M. to go to a store a block away to buy milk and candy. When she did not return home from the store promptly, a search was begun by Patricia's father. City and county police authorities were summoned. Her bicycle was found abandoned a short distance from Patricia's home. Nearby was discovered a paper sack containing a half gallon of milk. Later, a pair of slacks identified as those worn by Patricia were found in the same vicinity.
At the trial she testified that when she was returning home from the store she was grabbed by a man whom she identified in court as the Appellant. She said that her assailant dragged her into an abandoned shack on the vacant lot near the store and there forced her to remove her slacks and underwear. When Patricia's father began calling for her shortly after she failed to return, Patricia said her assailant threatened to kill her if she did not keep quiet and forced her to leave the shack and made her accompany him to an abandoned trailer some distance from the store. There, she said he forced her to have sexual intercourse with him several times, including acts of fellatio and cunnilingus. She also testified that her assailant choked her, slapped her, and cut her hair with a razor blade.
On Monday after more sexual episodes extending into the afternoon, the assailant bound the prosecutrix and left the trailer stating he was going to change clothes. Shortly thereafter prosecutrix was able to free herself and flee from the trailer and obtained assistance in summoning the police.
After her in-court identification of Appellant at trial as her assailant, it developed on cross-examination of prosecutrix concerning her in-court identification that in attempting to describe her assailant to a deputy sheriff late Monday afternoon after she escaped she told him that her assailant disclosed to her in the trailer he had been recently jailed for the rape of another girl. After this revelation to the authorities, a picture of Appellant was shown to prosecutrix and thereupon she identified him as her assailant. The next morning (Tuesday) the prosecutrix went to the jail and identified the Appellant from a lineup. At that time no attorney had been appointed to represent Appellant, who is an indigent. Shortly thereafter Appellant was indicted and charged with the crime of rape.
Because the foregoing cross-examination testimony of prosecutrix revealed that her recollection of the identity of her assailant had been aided by the single photograph of Appellant shown her by the deputy sheriff, and because Appellant was identified by prosecutrix in a lineup at the time when no attorney had been appointed to represent him, an indigent, Appellant poses Point I for consideration in his appeal.
In support of the affirmative of Point I Appellant relies upon the rationale of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 182 L.Ed. 1149 (1967), and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed. 1178 (1967).
It is our duty to apply the rationales of those holdings to the degree applicable in the particular case. In passing, we make note that our earlier suggestion in the case of Perkins v. State, Fla.1969, 228 So.2d 382, that the rationale of the two cases, Wade and Gilbert, applied only to post-indictment lineups is correct.
The Supreme Court of the United States in considering the subject in Stovall v. Denno, 1967, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, reaffirmed the Wade and Gilbert holdings, but said:
'However, a claimed violation of due process of law in the conduct of a confrontation depends on the totality of the circumstances surrounding it . . .'
Later, in Simmons v. United States, 1968, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, the Supreme Court of the United States reiterated that:
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court adds:
'We hold that each case must be considered on its own facts, and that convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...photographs. f. Other Factors: The Court has given great weight to other scientific evidence of the Defendant's guilt. In Chaney v. State, 267 So.2d 65 (Fla.1972), the court supported its findings by noting that a fingerprint was found of the Defendant which corroborated the witness' identi......
-
Nettles v. State
...and appellant has failed to show any abuse of that discretion. See Ashley v. State, 370 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979); Chaney v. State, 267 So.2d 65 (Fla.1972); Thomas v. State, 326 So.2d 413 Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and LARRY G. SMI......
-
Tibbs v. State
...this procedure was so suggestive as to give rise to a real likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The prosecutrix in Chaney v. State, 267 So.2d 65 (Fla.1972), identified her assailant when presented with a single photograph of him by the Sheriff's deputy. Subsequently, she identified ......
-
Lloyd v. State, 65631
...be considered by the jury as a matter of credibility, since the witness was before the court for examination. See, e.g., Chaney v. State, 267 So.2d 65 (Fla.1972); Brown v. State, 397 So.2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Daniels v. State, 262 So.2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA REMAINING ISSUES IN THE GUILT PHA......