Proctor v. State
97 So. 3d 313
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Proctor was convicted on four counts: two uttering forged checks and two third-degree grand theft counts.
- Detective Lane identified Proctor as the man in bank video by comparing surveillance with a DAVID system photo and signature.
- DAVID showed an Eric Proctor with a different license number; detective relied on photo and signature to link to Proctor.
- Detective Lane testified that the checks and DAVID signatures were written by the same person.
- Tellers who cashed the checks could not identify Proctor at trial, and no eyewitness testified Proctor committed the crimes.
- The trial court admitted the detective’s identifications; on appeal, the convictions were reversed and remanded for a new trial due to improper identification testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detective identification and handwriting testimony were admissible | Proctor | Proctor | Reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruffin v. State, 549 So.2d 250 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (identification testimony from officers invaded jury’s province)
- Charles v. State, 79 So.3d 233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (detective identification testimony invades jury’s role; not qualified as expert)
- Edwards v. State, 583 So.2d 740 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (reverses where officer did not firsthand witness sale and cannot identify from tape)
- Johnson v. State, 93 So.3d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (no error in officers’ identification on videotape based on prior knowledge)
- Clark v. State, 114 So.2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959) (lay handwriting identification allowed with sufficient familiarity)