ARKHEEM J. LAMB, Appellant,
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit,
Palm Beach County; Glenn D. Kelley, Judge; L.T. Case No.
Haughwout, Public Defender, and Siobhan Helene Shea, Special
Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J.
Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for
defendant appeals from his convictions, arising from a
carjacking, for grand theft of a vehicle and grand theft. The
defendant primarily argues that the trial court erred in
permitting the state to introduce into evidence a Facebook
video showing the defendant sitting in the stolen car and
wearing the victim's stolen watch just hours after the
carjacking occurred. We find no error in any of the trial
court's decisions arising from the Facebook video's
use at trial. Therefore, we affirm the convictions.
We present this opinion in the following sections:
A. The trial:
1. The carjackings;
2. The investigation;
3. The Facebook video.
B. Our review of the defendant's arguments:
1. The discovery objection;
2. The authentication objection;
3. The best evidence objection; and
4. The motion for judgment of acquittal.
trial involved two separate carjackings, occurring just a few
hours apart and about thirty miles apart. The jury convicted
the defendant on the charges arising from the first
carjacking, but acquitted him of the charges arising from the
second carjacking. We will describe both carjackings because
the evidence was intertwined.
10:00 p.m., the first victim was sitting in his car near a
hotel in Jupiter. A man opened the first victim's door,
put a gun to the first victim's head, and told the first
victim to get out. A second man approached, and a pickup
truck pulled up. The two men pushed the first victim to the
ground and drove off in the first victim's car. The
pickup truck followed. The men, besides taking the first
victim's car, also took the first victim's phone,
watch, wallet, and cash, including Cuban money.
after 1:00 a.m. that night in Greenacres, located about
thirty miles south of the Jupiter hotel, the second victim
pulled his car into an apartment complex. Two men then
approached, one with a silver gun. The men took the second
victim's phone and other items, and drove away in the
second victim's car. Then a car matching the description
of the first victim's car drove past the second victim,
with the driver's side window partially rolled down. That
car's driver said something to the second victim before
driving away behind the second victim's car. The second
victim could not see what that driver looked like or whether
other people were in the car.
following morning, both victims' cars were found in the
same area in a city located between Jupiter and Greenacres.
Both the first victim's phone and the second victim's
phone were found in the first victim's car. The first
victim's watch, wallet, and cash were missing.
Jupiter police detective investigated the first carjacking at
the Jupiter hotel. A Palm Beach County sheriff's
detective investigated the second carjacking in Greenacres.
The detectives came into contact with each other because the
carjackings were similar.
first victim identified two of the codefendants as the
carjackers. However, the first victim did not identify the
defendant as one of the carjackers or one of the persons
inside the pick-up truck.
second victim also identified one of the codefendants as the
carjacker holding the gun. However, the second victim did not
identify the defendant as the other carjacker or one of the
persons inside the car matching the description of the first
detectives determined that the codefendants did not live in
Jupiter, so the detectives pieced together the
codefendants' connections to each other. During that
investigation, the detectives found that the defendant and
codefendants had connections to each other from being stopped
by law enforcement on prior occasions. They all lived in the
city where the cars were found.
detectives obtained a search warrant for one of the
codefendant's phones. On that phone, the detectives found
pictures of that codefendant holding a silver gun matching
the gun used in the carjackings. When one of the other
codefendants was arrested, he possessed a silver gun matching
the gun used in the carjackings.
The Facebook Video
Jupiter police department also found on the codefendant's
phone a Facebook video showing both stolen cars. The
detectives showed the Facebook video to the first victim
trial, the state, without having moved the Facebook video
into evidence, asked the first victim if he recognized the
defendant in the video he was shown. The defendant objected
based on the best evidence rule. The trial court overruled
the defendant's objection. The first victim testified
that the defendant could be seen on the Facebook video
driving the first victim's car and wearing the first
victim's watch, while one of the codefendants was sitting
in the front passenger seat counting the first victim's
both the first victim and second victim testified, the Palm
Beach County Sheriff's detective testified. The state,
without having moved the Facebook video into evidence, asked
the detective if he recognized anyone in the Facebook video.
The defendant objected based on the best evidence rule. The
trial court overruled the defendant's objection. The
detective testified he recognized the defendant in the
Facebook video. The detective also testified that the
Facebook video had been posted approximately twenty-one
minutes after the second carjacking.
state then moved to enter the Facebook video into evidence.
The defendant objected, and the following exchange occurred
THE COURT: I don't think it's been authenticated yet,
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That is our objection, Judge. We believe
that this was extracted from the Jupiter Police Department,
an agent from the Jupiter Police Department, and they have
not yet testified. This witness [the Sheriff's ...