Case Name: Carl CRIBBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-02-08
Citations: 297 So. 2d 335
Docket Number: No. 73-613
Parties: Carl CRIBBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 297
Pages: 335–337

Head Matter:
Carl CRIBBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 73-613.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Feb. 8, 1974.
Rehearing Denied July 26, 1974.
Britt Whitaker, Tampa, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr. and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
MANN, Chief Judge.
The trial court held that the lineup in which Cribbs participated was im-permissibly suggestive and announced, "I am going to suppress the line-up but not the in-court identification." There is consequently a misunderstanding of United States v. Wade, 1967, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149. When a line-up was shown to have been improper, the in-court identification is presumed to be tainted by it until the State shows by clear and convincing evidence that the in-court identification is grounded upon an independent basis. That may well have been shown in this case, had the court recognized the effect of the taint, because the witness had seen the defendant on several prior occasions and had given a description of him to the police. Unfortunately we know nothing about what that description was and we have no basis on this record for determining that the in-court identification was based upon observation prior to the invalid line-up. The evidence of guilt is not so conclusive as would warrant our finding the error harmless, as we did in Settle v. State, Fla.App., 288 So.2d 511, Opinion filed January 25, 1974.
The judgment and sentence are vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, free of suggestivity, affording the State an opportunity to show by clear and convincing evidence that, the in-court identification is free of taint, and thereafter for reentry of judgment and sentence or for a new trial as required by United States v. Wade, supra.
McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.