ARKHEEM J. LAMB v. STATE OF FLORIDA
246 So. 3d 400
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Two nighttime carjackings occurred a few hours and ~30 miles apart; defendant convicted only for the first incident (grand theft of vehicle and watch) and acquitted for the second.
- Stolen vehicles were later recovered together; victims’ phones recovered in the first victim’s car; watch, wallet, and cash missing from first victim.
- Investigators found a Facebook Live video on a codefendant’s public page showing both stolen cars; the video was posted shortly after the second carjacking and showed the defendant driving the first victim’s car, wearing the victim’s watch, a codefendant counting Cuban money, and the defendant saying “we live.”
- A Jupiter Police digital forensic examiner downloaded and verified the Facebook video and testified about how he obtained it; detectives and the first victim identified the defendant and stolen property in the video.
- Defense objected to: (1) lack of expert disclosure for the forensic examiner, (2) insufficient authentication of the Facebook video, (3) best-evidence / lay-opinion identifications by witnesses, and (4) sufficiency of evidence (motion for judgment of acquittal).
- Trial court admitted the video after hearing the forensic examiner and detectives; denied the motion for judgment of acquittal; Fourth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Lamb's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nondisclosure of the digital forensic examiner as an expert violated discovery | Examiner merely testified to his actions and familiarity with Facebook (facts), not expert opinion | Examiner should have been disclosed as an expert because he explained Facebook and opined about timestamps/process | No abuse of discretion; not an expert disclosure violation because testimony was factual, not expert opinion |
| Whether the Facebook video was properly authenticated | Distinctive characteristics (visual depiction of stolen cars, stolen watch, defendant speaking), plus forensic examiner’s download/verification, suffice for prima facie authentication | Authentication inadequate without testimony from the creator/recorder or someone who captured the video | Admissible; low Rule 901 threshold met—jury decides ultimate weight |
| Whether witnesses’ identifications of persons/property on the video violated best evidence / lay-opinion rules | Detectives and victim were better positioned than jurors to identify people and items (familiarity from investigation and ownership) | Witnesses were in same position as jurors; identifications amounted to improper lay opinion | No abuse of discretion; witnesses qualified under §90.701 and precedent to identify recording contents |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support theft convictions (judgment of acquittal) | Video placed defendant in possession of recently stolen goods shortly after the crimes; circumstantial proof supports guilty knowledge and participation | Mere presence/passive after-acquired possession insufficient to prove intent to participate | De novo review: evidence, viewed favorably to State, was sufficient to send intent to jury and sustain convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Pender v. State, 700 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 1997) (standard for reviewing discovery rulings)
- Mullens v. State, 197 So. 3d 16 (Fla. 2016) (authentication standard; prima facie showing suffices for admission)
- Santana v. State, 191 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (distinguishing required proof for voice/audio authentication)
- Alvarez v. State, 147 So. 3d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (when witnesses are better positioned than jurors to identify persons in recordings)
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002) (standard of review and analysis for judgment of acquittal)