Cribbs v. State, 73-613
| Decision Date | 08 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-613,73-613 |
| Citation | 297 So.2d 335 |
| Parties | Carl CRIBBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Britt Whitaker, Tampa, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr. and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
The trial court held that the line-up in which Cribbs participated was impermissibly suggestive and announced, 'I am going to suppress the line-up but not the in-court identification.' There is consequently a misunderstanding of United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149. When a line-up was shown to have been improper, the in-court identification is presumed to be tainted by it until the State shows by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification is grounded upon an independent basis. That may well have been shown in this case, had the court recognized the effect of the taint, because the witness had seen the defendant on several prior occasions and had given a description of him to the police. Unfortunately we know nothing about what that description was and we have no basis on this record for determining that the in-court identification was based upon observation prior to the invalid line-up. The evidence of guilt is not so conclusive as would warrant our finding the error harmless, as we did in Settle v. State, Fla.App., 288 So.2d 511, opinion filed January 25, 1974.
The judgment and sentence are vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, free of suggestivity, affording the State an opportunity to show by clear and convincing evidence that, the in-court identification is free of taint, and thereafter for reentry of judgment and sentence or for a new trial as required by United States v. Wade, Supra.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
The State's supplemental petition for rehearing asserts that:
'This honorable court's reliance on United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149), for vacating and remanding is completely misplaced in that: United States v. Wade is concerned with a rule of exclusion applicable only when there is a denial of counsel at lineup.
There is no rule of exclusion applicable to in-court identifications involving questions of pretrial misidentification procedures. The in-court identification continues to be admissible even though the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sepulvado
...the suggestive pretrial procedure. Simmons v. United States, supra; Hamilton v. State, 303 So.2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Cribbs v. State, 297 So.2d 335 (Fla. 2d DCA), Cert. denied, 303 So.2d 335 (Fla.1974). However, once a trial court determines that a pretrial identification procedure was ......
-
State v. Ciongoli
...So.2d 268 (4th DCA Fla.1970).2 Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441.3 The trial judge in Cribbs v. State, 297 So.2d 335 (2d DCA Fla.1974), found a line-up impermissibly suggestive and suppressed the line-up but not the in-court identification. In vacating jud......
-
State v. Morgan
...S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967) and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967), See, Cribbs v. State, 297 So.2d 335 (Fla.App.1974); State v. Porraro, R.I., 404 A.2d 465 (1979); State v. Mitchell, Tenn., 593 S.W.2d 280 For the foregoing reasons we remand th......
-
Hamilton v. State, 73--726
...338 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199.2 Foster v. Calif., 1969, 394 U.S. 440, 89 S.Ct. 1127, 22 L.Ed.2d 402; Cribbs v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 297 So.2d 335. See also Wall, Eyewitness Identification in Criminal Cases (1965).3 See Bryan v. State, Fla.App.2d 1974, 290 So.2d 515.4 Ward ......