State v. Smith

Rule of Law:

The due process clause of the Florida Constitution forbids the state from obtaining an ex parte court order to compel an in-custody accused to participate in a police lineup. Evidence obtained from such a lineup must be suppressed as a violation of the accused's right to notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Facts:

• On February 28, 1983, two men robbed a convenience store clerk, Seepersaud Schive Charan.
• Minutes later, police apprehended Sylester Smith's brother, Sylvester, whom Charan identified as the first man who entered the store.
• Two days later, Charan identified Terry Lamar Green from a photo display as the second robber who actually committed the taking.
• Subsequently, Sylvester implicated his brother, Sylester Earl Smith (Respondent), in the robbery.
• Police arrested Sylester Smith and released Terry Green.
• While in custody, Sylester Smith was asked to participate in a police lineup but refused to do so.
• A detective told Charan before the lineup that there was a new suspect and the person he identified in the photos (Green) would not be present.
• Charan then identified Sylester Smith in the lineup as the robber.

Procedural Posture:

• Sylester Smith had a first appearance hearing in county court, where counsel was not appointed because Smith indicated he would retain his own attorney.
• The state's attorney obtained an ex parte order from the court compelling Smith to appear in a lineup.
• The state filed an information formally charging Smith with robbery.
• Smith filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the lineup identification, which the trial court denied.
• A jury convicted Smith of robbery.
• Smith appealed his conviction to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which reversed the trial court's decision.
• The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified a question of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida.