Alvelo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alvelo v. State

866 So. 2d 1240, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 459, 2004 WL 119326

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 23, 2004

DocketNo. 5D02-3455

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 866 So. 2d 1240 (Alvelo v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alvelo v. State, 866 So. 2d 1240, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 459, 2004 WL 119326 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

We affirm the convictions for attempted trafficking in heroin, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

We agree that the court should not have allowed a police officer to testify that he received a tip that Alvelo was processing and dealing in heroin from his home. The only non-hearsay relevance of this testimony was to explain why the police had focused their attention on Alvelo. In such a case “the better practice is to allow the officer to state that he acted upon a ‘tip’ or ‘information received,’ without going into the details of the accusatory information.” State v. Baird, 572 So.2d 904, 908 (Fla.1990). Nevertheless, based on Alvelo’s admissions to a police officer, his knowledge that the “material” was hidden under the insoles of his visitor’s shoes, and the evidence of drug dealing in the home, we conclude that the error was harmless because it could not have affected the verdict. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1139 (Fla.1986).

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, J., concurs. TORPY, J., concurs specially, without opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THOMPSON, J.

We affirm the convictions for attempted trafficking in heroin, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

We agree that the court should not have allowed a police officer to testify that he received a tip that Alvelo was processing and dealing in heroin from his home. The only non-hearsay relevance of this testimony was to explain why the police had focused their attention on Alvelo. In such a case “the better practice is to allow the officer to state that he acted upon a ‘tip’ or ‘information received,’ without going into the details of the accusatory information.” State v. Baird, 572 So.2d 904, 908 (Fla.1990). Nevertheless, based on Alvelo’s admissions to a police officer, his knowledge that the “material” was hidden under the insoles of his visitor’s shoes, and the evidence of drug dealing in the home, we conclude that the error was harmless because it could not have affected the verdict. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1139 (Fla.1986).

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, J., concurs. TORPY, J., concurs specially, without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

866 So. 2d 1240, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 459, 2004 WL 119326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvelo-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack