Evans v. State, 82-959
| Decision Date | 09 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-959,82-959 |
| Citation | 422 So.2d 60 |
| Parties | James Alvin EVANS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Harold Mendelow, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Scott Silver and Calvin Fox, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ and DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
Appellant visited the victim's jewelry store purportedly to purchase jewelry. While the owner was in the rear of the store engraving, the saleslady waiting on the appellant left him alone in the front to get him water at his request. After receiving the water, the appellant told the saleslady that he had spilled some on himself and would like to go out and clean up. The saleslady then unlocked the electronically controlled front door and he left. The storeowner came out, saw appellant getting into a cab and noticed that several items of expensive jewelry were missing from display cabinets. He ran after appellant attempting to catch him, but was unsuccessful. Neither the saleslady nor the owner saw any other person in the store during the entire episode.
At trial the following exchange took place between the victim and defense counsel on cross-examination:
Q. How many times did the police come to your store other then on the first day?
A. I believe that's all. We went down to the police station instead of them coming to us.
Q. It was once or twice?
A. Twice.
Q. Once for what purpose?
A. We had to identify who it was by mug shots. (e.s.)
Defense counsel's motion for mistrial set forth no specific grounds and was denied. There was no request for a curative instruction. Appellant contends that the reference to mug shots was so prejudicial that a new trial is required. We cannot agree.
Usually, a reference to mug shots does not necessitate an automatic reversal; rather the question must be resolved on the basis of the entire record and surrounding circumstances. See Loftin v. State, 273 So.2d 70 (Fla.1973); Moore v. State, 418 So.2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Mancebo v. State, 350 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Appellant concedes that identification of defendant as a person in the store on the date of the theft is not an issue. The real question is whether the circumstantial evidence excludes as a reasonable inference that someone other than the appellant took the jewelry from the store. The words "mug shot", used by the witness in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clavelle v. Sec'y, Case No. 3:16-cv-781-J-39PDB
...police." Williams v. State, 438 So.2d 152, 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), cause dismissed, 443 So.2d 981 (Fla. 1983) (citing Evans v. State, 422 So.2d 60, 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Moore v. State, 418 So.2d 435, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)). This Court also notes postconviction relief is not warranted on ......
-
Hellman v. State
..."previous things" was subject of curative instruction). See also Williams v. State, 438 So.2d 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Evans v. State, 422 So.2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Moore v. State, 418 So.2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (same result where reference is to "mug shot" of Id. at 944. We hold the sa......
-
D'Anna v. State
...sufficient to cure the prejudice resulting from introduction of "mug shots," Williams v. State, supra at 153, n. 1; Evans v. State, 422 So.2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Moore v. State, 418 So.2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Accordingly, while appellant has shown error, our review of the entire recor......
-
McCall v. State
...surrounding circumstances. Loftin v. State, 273 So.2d 70 (Fla.1973); D'Anna v. State, 453 So.2d 151 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Evans v. State, 422 So.2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Mancebo v. State, 350 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1217 (Fla.1978). See Ferguson v. State, 417 ......