96 So. 3d 1110
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Henry A. Jenkins seeks reversal of his armed robbery conviction on two grounds.
- Victim Lauren Jiminez identified Appellant from a show-up conducted minutes after the crime; she was 90% sure.
- Show-up occurred with Appellant in handcuffs, after a quick police briefing at a gas station and scene recovery.
- Appellant moved to suppress the out-of-court identification as unnecessarily suggestive and likely to cause misidentification.
- Trial court denied suppression; proceedings proceeded to trial with the show-up and related evidence.
- During closing, prosecutor commented on Appellant’s demeanor, prompting a motion for mistrial which the court denied; conviction affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the show-up identification unnecessarily suggestive and misleading? | Jenkins argues the handcuffed show-up tainted identification. | Jiminez’s identification was based on weight, height, clothing; show-up was not unduly suggestive given timing and description. | No abuse of discretion; show-up not unnecessarily suggestive, slight misidentification likelihood. |
| Did the prosecutor's comments in closing require a mistrial? | Comments on demeanor violated fairness and warranted mistrial. | Statement was improper but isolated; not enough to require mistrial given other evidence of guilt. | Improper but isolated; did not require mistrial; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. State, 637 So.2d 361 (Fla.1st DCA 1994) (abuse of discretion standard for suppression of identifications)
- Rimmer v. State, 825 So.2d 304 (Fla.2002) (two-part test for identification suppression)
- Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So.2d 495 (Fla.2005) (show-up analysis requires not unduly suggestive procedures)
- State v. Cromartie, 419 So.2d 757 (Fla.1st DCA 1982) (show-ups inherently suggestive but not reversible if not aggravating)
- Perez v. State, 648 So.2d 715 (Fla.1995) (factors for evaluating likelihood of misidentification)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (factors for misidentification under totality of circumstances)
- Jackson v. State, 744 So.2d 545 (Fla.5th DCA 1999) (demeanor of defendant not proper subject for argument when off witness stand)
- Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493 (Fla.1992) (prosecutor's comments on demeanor improper)
- Wellons v. State, 87 So.3d 1223 (Fla.3d DCA 2012) (isolated improper comment not grounds for mistrial)
- Spencer v. State, 645 So.2d 377 (Fla.1994) (standard for when comments affect conviction or fairness)
- Hamilton v. State, 703 So.2d 1038 (Fla.1997) (mistrial warranted only to ensure fair trial)
- Gudinas v. State, 693 So.2d 953 (Fla.1997) (mistrial standards and prejudice considerations)