SAMUEL MOORE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying motions to suppress identification and for mistrial/new trial based on prosecutorial remarks.
Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. He challenged the identification procedures used by the police and remarks made by the prosecutor duri…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Identification Procedures cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, who is serving a life sentence in the State Penitentiary, seeks reversal of a judgment of conviction based on a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the first degree, with a recommendation of mercy.
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the out-of-court and in-court identification of the appellant and permitting such identification to go to the jury.
The crime occurred on June 16, 1971 and photographs were shown to the witness on June 26, and July 5, 1971, while the appellant was still at liberty. He was not arrested until July 9, 1971, after an investigation by the police. A preliminary hearing was held on July 22, 1971, and an indictment was returned on September 7, 1971.
Several folders, each containing eight or ten photographs, were presented to the two witnesses. Both witnesses identified the *466appellant positively on all occasions. We find no merit in the appellant’s contentions. See: Perkins v. State, Fla.1969, 228 So.2d 382; Lewis v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So.2d 526; Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968).
The final point relied upon by appellant for reversal is that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motions for a mistrial and new trial based upon remarks made by the assistant state attorney during voir dire and closing argument. We have considered the remarks objected to and conclude that they did not constitute prejudicial error.
No reversible error having been demonstrated, the judgment and sentence are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1968)
- Dudley George Hanemann v. State, 228 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1969)
- Lewis v. State, 256 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)