182 SO2D 19 - Boyer v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 1997

6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1W.D. Frederick, Jr., Public Defender, and Joseph X. Dumond, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Orlando, for appellant.

¶2Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert G. Stokes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4The defendant, Larry Anson Boyer, appeals his conviction of robbery, breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, aggravated assault and grand larceny.

¶5At the trial the victim, as a prosecution witness, testified to the fact that when the defendant appeared in a police lineup he refused to speak or, at least, to speak audibly. It has been held that it is not a violation of the privilege against self-incrimination to compel one who is accused or suspected of a crime to speak for the purpose of identification in a police lineup and to allow a witness who heard the defendant speak to testify to such fact at the trial. Holt v. United States, 1910, 218 U.S. 245, 31 S.Ct. 2, 54 L.Ed. 1021; Hunt v. State, 1946, 248 Ala. 217, 27 So.2d 186; People v. Lopez, 1964, 60 Cal.2d 223, *2032 Cal. Rptr. 424, 384 P.2d 16 (cert. den., 372 U.S. 994, 84 S.Ct. 634, 11 L.Ed.2d 480); Barrett v. State, 1950, 190 Tenn. 366, 229 S.W.2d 516, 18 A.L.R.2d 789.

¶6To speak inaudibly or to speak without moving his lips would come within the same rule.

¶7The other question raised is the sufficiency of the evidence. The evidence was entirely circumstantial. The defendant testified and attempted to establish an alibi. A careful examination of the record reveals that there was sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶8Affirmed.

¶9SMITH, C.J., and ANDREWS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.