Baso v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Baso v. State

433 So. 2d 660, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19773

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 28, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1499

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 433 So. 2d 660 (Baso 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

Baso v. State, 433 So. 2d 660, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19773 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

Finding no error in the trial court’s admission of testimony concerning the gun found in Baso’s car at the time of his arrest for extortion and grand theft, we affirm the convictions. Great latitude is afforded the trial court in passing on the admissibility of indirect or circumstantial evidence. See United States v. Pentado, 463 F.2d 355 (5th Cir.1972); Alvord v. State, 322 So.2d 533 (Fla.1975). The testimony concerning the gun was relevant in that it helped to establish that Baso knew a large sum of money was to be picked up in connection with the alleged extortion. The probative value of this testimony was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See United States v. Marino, 658 F.2d 1120 (6th Cir.1981); §§ 90.401, 403, Fla. Stat. (1979).

We find no merit in Baso’s contention that the trial court should have stricken the charge of carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony; however, if any error resulted from the court’s failure to grant Baso’s untimely motion to strike or dismiss the charge, it must be deemed harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. See Rodriguez v. State, 413 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Affirmed.

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

BASKIN, Judge.

Finding no error in the trial court’s admission of testimony concerning the gun found in Baso’s car at the time of his arrest for extortion and grand theft, we affirm the convictions. Great latitude is afforded the trial court in passing on the admissibility of indirect or circumstantial evidence. See United States v. Pentado, 463 F.2d 355 (5th Cir.1972); Alvord v. State, 322 So.2d 533 (Fla.1975). The testimony concerning the gun was relevant in that it helped to establish that Baso knew a large sum of money was to be picked up in connection with the alleged extortion. The probative value of this testimony was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See United States v. Marino, 658 F.2d 1120 (6th Cir.1981); §§ 90.401, 403, Fla. Stat. (1979).

We find no merit in Baso’s contention that the trial court should have stricken the charge of carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony; however, if any error resulted from the court’s failure to grant Baso’s untimely motion to strike or dismiss the charge, it must be deemed harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. See Rodriguez v. State, 413 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

433 So. 2d 660, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baso-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack