NAMON D. PAIGE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case considers whether the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Wade, concerning lineup identifications, applies retroactively. The court held that Wade only applies to confrontations for identification conducted in the absence of counsel after the date of the Wade decision.
No, the mandate of United States v. Wade is not applicable to this case because the lineup occurred before the Wade decision.
“The sole question in this case is whether the mandate of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Wade, relating to a lineup identification as it may affect the in-court identification, is applicable.”
This quote frames the central legal issue of the case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was involved in a lineup identification on February 20, 1967. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wade, which addressed …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The sole question in this case is whether the mandate of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Wade,1 relating to a lineup identification as it may affect the in-court identification, is applicable. The lineup herein occurred on the twentieth day of February, 1967 and the decision in Wade, supra, was handed down on June 12, 1967. The trial hereof occurred thereafter. Under the chronology above, the case is controlled by Stovall v. Denno,2 decided on the same day as Wade, in which the United States Supreme Court expressly held that Wade affects “ * * * only * * * cases which involve confrontations for identification purposes conducted in the absence of counsel after this date". 3 [Italics supplied] See also, Hatten v. State.4
Accordingly, Wade is inapplicable to this case and the judgment and sentence appealed from must be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
Affirmed.
PIERCE, Acting C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Namon D. Paige v. State, 282 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…Paige, was convicted by jury for the crime of rape. The majority of the jury recommended mercy. Following the trial the judge sentenced appellant to life imprisonment. He filed notice of appeal and this court affirmed. Paige v. State, Fla.App.1969, 227 So. 2d 727. Subsequently, appellant filed a RCrP 3.-850, 33 F.S.A., motion in an effort to vacate and set aside the judgment and sentence. After review and consideration the motion was denied by the Honorable Gun-ter Stephenson, circuit judge, Tenth Judicial…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967)
- Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1967)
- Hatten v. State, 217 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)