Court Opinion

ID: 9543201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:43:09.967338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:57.282881
License: Public Domain

BRETT, Presiding Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent to this decision. As I view the record before this Court, the evidence was insufficient to sustain this conviction. Likewise, I believe the identification was so tainted it should not have been admitted. Mr. Turner and Mr. Coday both testified that the photograph they selected was similar to the person who committed the alleged robbery. When they viewed the second lineup, they were both instructed to say nothing to defense counsel and to make their identification known to one officer only. This defeated the purpose for having the attorney present at the lineup. Mr. Coday testified that he identified the fourth person in the lineup, but Mr. Turner testified that he identified the fifth person in the lineup. Also, the descriptions of the hat worn by the alleged robber were in considerable conflict. Mr. Coday testified that the man he saw just prior to the robbery wore “A blue hat, came up to a point and it was — -floppy ends; the front and back were pulled down.” Mr. Turner testified that the man who committed the robbery wore “Kind of a beach hat, — kind of a reversible cloth hat, I guess you could say.” In short, I believe the identification was based upon the photograph the two men picked out, notwithstanding what they testified to before the jury. As I interpret the testimony at both the hearing outside the jury and before the jury, the requirements of Thompson v. State, supra, were not met.
While it was not raised on appeal, I believe the Public Defender 'should have submitted the certification hearing record with this appeal, under the rules existing at the *217time. Prior to the voir dire of the jury, defense counsel objected to the jurisdiction of the trial court, stating that a proper certification hearing was not held and that defendant’s statutory and constitutional rights were thereby violated. This being a fundamental question it should have been presented with this appeal.