Alvarez v. State
147 So. 3d 537
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2010 two Circle K employees were killed during an armed robbery; Alvarez and co-defendant Razz were tried jointly and convicted of two counts of first-degree murder with a firearm while masked and one count of robbery with a firearm while masked.
- Surveillance video shows two masked, black-clad perpetrators (one with a handgun, one with a rifle); the video and enlarged stills did not clearly show skin tone or facial features.
- A detective testified he reviewed the surveillance video dozens of times and concluded the first perpetrator was a light-skinned Hispanic or white male and the second was a dark-skinned male; this testimony was elicited over defense objections that it was improper lay opinion/identification.
- No record evidence showed the detective was in a better position than jurors to determine skin color from the video; no BOLO based on that determination appeared in the record.
- Other evidence included cell records, witnesses who placed Alvarez and Razz near the scene, testimony from inmates and a corrections officer about statements by Alvarez, and ballistic evidence linking a recovered projectile to a handgun thrown into a lake.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of detective’s opinion about perpetrators’ skin color/race from surveillance video | State: detective’s repeated viewing and investigative role permitted lay opinion to explain investigative steps and BOLOs | Alvarez: detective not qualified, not in better position than jurors, testimony invaded jury function and was improper lay opinion | Court: admission was error — detective not shown to be in better position than jurors to determine skin color/race; lay opinion improperly admitted |
| Whether error was harmless | State: other evidence (confession-like statements, ballistic links, witness testimony) made error harmless | Alvarez: video inconclusive; detective’s unequivocal statements could have influenced jury; jurors asked to view video during deliberations | Court: error was not harmless — cannot say beyond reasonable doubt jury did not rely on impermissible testimony; reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Tengbergen v. State, 9 So.3d 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (standard of review for admissibility of evidence)
- Fino v. Nodine, 646 So.2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (lay opinion testimony under §90.701 may be admissible for matters perceived)
- Johnson v. State, 93 So.3d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (officer identification from video admissible when officer was in better position than jury)
- State v. Cordia, 564 So.2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (voice identification admissible when officers familiar with speaker)
- Ruffin v. State, 549 So.2d 250 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (jury must decide matters within ordinary juror knowledge; error to allow identification when officer no better positioned)
- Charles v. State, 79 So.3d 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (error to permit detective to testify he later identified person in surveillance video when not in better position)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless error standard: state must prove beyond reasonable doubt error did not contribute to verdict)
- Cooper v. State, 43 So.3d 42 (Fla. 2010) (appellate harmless-error analysis revisited when erroneous evidence admitted)
- Ventura v. State, 29 So.3d 1086 (Fla. 2010) (admission of improper comments can require reversal despite strong evidence)