Ross v. State
| Decision Date | 20 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 65--512,65--512 |
| Citation | 190 So.2d 187 |
| Parties | Walter ROSS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Engel, Pollack, Lurie & Lesperance and Jack J. Taffer, Miami, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Herbert P. Benn, First Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C.J., CARROLL, J., and KING, JAMES LAWRENCE, Associate Judge.
KING, JAMES LAWRENCE, Associate Judge.
The appellant was found guilty, following a jury trial in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, of attempted grand larceny. In this appeal the appellant contends that the evidence produced by the State of the identity of the guilty party was insufficient to establish that he was the person who committed the crime.
The victim of the attempted larceny was returning from his daily visit to the bank when a tall, thick lipped colored man approached him in the street and attempted to snatch a cloth money bag from his grasp. The bag contained bills and change necessary for operation of the victim's restaurant business. The businessman yelled to attract the attention of other people on the street and gave chase when the thief fled.
Nothing in the thief's demeanor attracted the victim's attention until the sudden attempt to grab the cloth bag. In the ensuing brief scuffle the businessman had limited opportunity to observe the colored man who attacked him and was unable to later describe the clothing worn by the man. During the unsuccessful chase the victim testified he could not see the face of his assailant and did not observe any other distinguishing characteristics which would identify the thief.
An eye-witness to the event, who was working on a bus nearby, heard the victim shout and saw a white man giving chase to the colored man. He did not see the thief's face and was unable to identify this appellant as the perpetrator of the crime.
Several days later the victim visited police headquarters where he could make no positive identification from the photographs but selected the pictures of Several persons as being possible suspects. At a subsequent police line-up the appellant, Walter Ross, was identified by the victim as the thief. The record is clear that prior to the police line-up the victim was unsure of the identity of his assailant.
During the course of the trial the State offered the testimony of the victimized businessman and the eye-witness on the issue of the identity of the guilty party. The appellant denied any involvement with the crime stating that he spent the day at the home of a friend.
Recognizing the well established...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sundell v. State
...139 So. 791 (1932); Clark v. State, 98 Fla. 874, 124 So. 446 (1929); Fuller v. State, 92 Fla. 873, 110 So. 528 (1926); Ross v. State, 190 So.2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), is that appropriate motions were made at the trial level preserving the sufficiency question for We are not unmindful of th......
-
Simon v. State, s. 67--214
...L.R.A., N.S., 373 (1907); Martin v. State, 100 Fla. 16, 129 So. 112 (1930); Wright v. State, 182 So.2d 264 (Fla.App.1966); Ross v. State, 190 So.2d 187 (Fla.App.1966). Where evidence of identity is unsatisfactory, convictions have been reversed upon the ground that the prosecution must prov......
-
Banks v. State, 78-2311
...and remand the cause for a new trial based on the authority of Clark v. State, 98 Fla. 874, 124 So. 446 (1929), and Ross v. State, 190 So.2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). My conclusion in this respect is supported by the results of a polygraph examination administered to the defendant subsequent ......
-
Taylor v. State, 66--687
...as to the identification of the appellants as the persons who committed the crime. The appellants rely for reversal upon Ross v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 187 and cases cited therein. On that appeal this Court held the evidence of identity insufficient to prove identity beyond a reason......