James v. State, U--33
| Decision Date | 06 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. U--33,U--33 |
| Citation | 305 So.2d 829 |
| Parties | Perry Lee JAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ben W. Thompson, Jr., of Thompson, Gilleland & Baker, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Corrected Opinion On Petition for Rehearing
Appellant was arrested for committing several robberies in Leon County, but none of the victims could identify appellant from photographs shown to them by the investigating officer.
At the trial, a witness who had seen appellant seated in the courtroom earlier in the day, identified the appellant in open court as the robber. Appellant objected to the in-court identification on the basis that he was not given a lineup. Prior to trial, counsel for the appellant and the Assistant State's Attorney stipulated that no in-court identification would be used unless appellant was afforded an opportunity for a lineup.
On March 19, 1974, this Court affirmed, without opinion, appellant's conviction for robbery. Appellant filed a timely Petition for Rehearing and we requested additional memoranda of law on the right of the prosecutor to use identification evidence at trial after the prosecution represented to defense attorney prior to trial that such evidence would not be used without a prior lineup.
A prosecutor for the state has the power to enter into a binding stipulation with opposing counsel for the disposition of some relevant point in the proceedings, Arrington v. State, 233 So.2d 634 (Fla.1970). In fact, in this day of crowded dockets and crushing case loads, stipulations should be favored, if not encouraged.
In State v. Earnest, 265 So.2d 397 (Fla.App.1st, 1972), this Court held that even though a procedural rule specifically required a written stipulation, an oral, out-of-court, informal understanding should be enforced where to do otherwise would be manifestly unjust.
In the case sub judice appellant was entitled to a lineup and in reliance upon the representation of the State's Attorney that no in-court identification testimony would be introduced, appellant waived his right to such lineup. Appellant was entitled to rely upon the oral agreement between counsel and in fact did so to his detriment. Agreements between counsel must be enforceable if the courts are to retain the respect and confidence of the public. In Butler v. State, 228 So.2d 421 (F...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nova v. State, 82-1766
...DCA 1982). Of course, this is not to suggest that a court will condone the State's repudiation of its agreement, see James v. State, 305 So.2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), but merely to state that when the agreement is one which cannot be legally enforced, and, as here, the defendant is not irr......
-
State v. Vixamar, 95-3458
...at 424-25. The responsibility of a prosecutor to act fairly derives from the stature and function of the office. See James v. State, 305 So.2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Not every prosecutorial agreement implicates a pledge of the public faith so that specific performance of a promise is just......
-
State v. Hanson
...enforced to the extent that he has been prejudiced. See, e.g., United States v. Goodrich, 493 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1974); James v. State, 305 So.2d 829 (Fla.App.1975). In Smith v. State, 74 Ga.App. 777, 41 S.E.2d 541 (1947), the state's attorney had an agreement with Smith's accomplice Seals ......
-
Gibson v. State, Y--379
...appellants, and could have requested the victim to make a positive identification of the assailants. Appellants rely on James v. State, Fla.App.1st 1975, 305 So.2d 829, for the proposition that in a proper case, there is a right to a lineup vested in a defendant. This is not such a case. In......
-
§ 45.06 ENFORCEABILITY OF STIPULATIONS
...in his determination that the stipulation was admissible at the second trial."); Willis v. State, 374 N.E.2d 520, 522 (Ind. 1978).[39] 305 So. 2d 829 (Fla. App. 1975).[40] Id. at 830.[41] See Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Richard Lundgren, Inc., 314 F.3d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 2002) (a party may b......
-
§ 45.06 Enforceability of Stipulations
...in his determination that the stipulation was admissible at the second trial."); Willis v. State, 374 N.E.2d 520, 522 (Ind. 1978).[39] 305 So. 2d 829 (Fla. App. 1975).[40] Id. at 830.[41] See Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Richard Lundgren, Inc., 314 F.3d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 2002) (a party may b......
-
§45.01 INTRODUCTION
...as to facts about which there can be no dispute is to be encouraged as a proper means of expediting trials.").[2] James v. State, 305 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. App. 1975).[3] See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(3); Fed. R. Crim. P. 17.1 ("When a conference ends, the court must prepare and file a memorand......
-
§ 45.01 Introduction
..."they tend to promote disposition of cases, simplification of issues, and the saving of expense to litigants.").[2] James v. State, 305 So. 2d 829, 830 (Fla. App. 1975).[3] See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(3); Fed. R. Crim. P. 17.1 ("When a conference ends, the court must prepare and file a memora......