Mustepher v. State

GRIMES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of sexual battery primarily upon the testimony of the victim. He now contends that the court should not have admitted her identification testimony because it was based upon an impermissibly suggestive photopak.

The fact that appellant's picture consisted of a mug shot with a notation which indicated that he had previously been charged with sexual battery lends credence to appellant’s argument of suggestiveness. However, appellant neither objected to the evidence relating to the photopak nor moved to suppress the victim’s identification as tainted by the…