State v. Love, 96-1867
| Decision Date | 18 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-1867,96-1867 |
| Citation | 691 So.2d 620 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1000 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Victor E. LOVE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellee.
The state appeals the trial court's pretrial order suppressing from evidence a letter purportedly written by the defendant which contains incriminating admissions. We must reverse the suppression order because the trial court erred in concluding that the state failed to establish a prima facie showing of authenticity.
Marvin Monticeux, one of the defendant's two co-defendants, received an unsigned letter in the mail while both he and the defendant were incarcerated in the Orange County jail. The letter made reference to the relationship between the co-defendants, the offenses with which they were charged, and the status of their cases. The letter was replete with details concerning the charges, as well as Monticeux's agreement to cooperate with law enforcement officials. The letter explained to Monticeux that the statements which he and his girlfriend had made to the police led to the defendant's arrest. In imploring Monticeux to change his plea, the letter stated: "You have the opportunity to regain your freedom--give me mine."
The defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress this letter from evidence. He argued that he had not written the letter and claimed that it had been written by either Marvin Monticeux or Fred Lynn, a man who was incarcerated at the county jail at the same time as Monticeux and the defendant.
At the hearing on the motion, the trial court heard testimony from Monticeux and considered the deposition of Fred Lynn. Monticeux testified that he did not know who wrote the letter and that he did not recognize the handwriting. In his deposition, Lynn swore that he was the author of the letter. According to Lynn, when Monticeux first entered the jail, he was attacked by approximately thirty inmates because a newspaper article had described Monticeux as a "snitch." During the fray, Monticeux dropped a clipping of the article. When Lynn picked it up, he too was attacked. Both men were later removed from the common cell. Monticeux was placed in protective custody, and Lynn was moved to a cell located near the defendant's cell. Lynn said that he had obtained the information set forth in the letter from the newspaper article about the defendant's case, talking to the defendant, and papers that the defendant had showed him. He explained that others, whom he refused to name, also assisted in the dictation of the letter. Interestingly, he could not explain why his signature was not on the letter, could not remember when it was written, and could not recall any specifics regarding the third co-defendant's child, who was referred to in the letter by a nickname. Lynn testified that he did not know any of the three co-defendants prior to their incarceration. Based upon this evidence, the trial court ruled that the letter could not be admitted.
Section 90.901 of the Florida Statutes (1995) 1 requires authentication or identification of evidence as a condition precedent to its admission as evidence. Prima facie evidence must be introduced in order to prove that the evidence is authentic. ITT Real Estate Equities, Inc. v. Chandler Insurance Agency, Inc., 617 So.2d 750, 750-51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In order to set forth a prima facie case of authenticity, the proponent of the evidence can utilize both direct and circumstantial evidence. Yates v. Bass Ranch, Inc., 379 So.2d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Evidence may be authenticated by appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics taken in conjunction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coday v. State
...contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics in conjunction with the circumstances. See State v. Love, 691 So.2d 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). In this instance, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Coday's confession was authentic, for ther......
-
Gosciminski v. State
...to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” § 90.901, Fla. Stat. (2009); see also State v. Love, 691 So.2d 620, 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Evidence may be authenticated by examination of its appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other disti......
-
State v. Oldson
...supra note 80.140 Id.141 State v. Elseman, supra note 137.142 See U.S. v. Harvey, 117 F.3d 1044 (7th Cir.1997).143 See State v. Love, 691 So.2d 620 (Fla.App.1997).144 See, e.g., Bishop v. State, 252 Ga.App. 211, 555 S.E.2d 504 (2001) ; Box v. State, 74 Ark. App. 82, 45 S.W.3d 415 (2001).145......
-
Gosciminski v. State
...to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." § 90.901, Fla. Stat. (2009); see also State v. Love, 691 So. 2d 620, 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Evidence may be authenticated by examination of its appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other dist......
-
Trial and evidence
...evidence is authentic; the ultimate determination of the authenticity of the evidence is a question for the fact-finder”); State v. Love, 691 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).] However, lawyers should be prepared to demonstrate authenticity to judges who may not be familiar with social media ......