Elliot v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Elliot v. State

355 So. 2d 856, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15433

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 1978

DocketNo. 77-293

StatusPublished

This text of 355 So. 2d 856 (Elliot 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

Elliot v. State, 355 So. 2d 856, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15433 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with both possession and sale of a controlled substance (heroin). He was convicted by a jury of possession only. By this appeal, appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it admitted into evidence marked money allegedly paid for heroin purchased from him by an undercover policeman, since that evidence was illegally seized.

Even assuming, arguendo, that the challenged evidence should have been excluded, a point we do not reach, we find that any error in its admission was harmless for two reasons. First, its primary relevance was to the charge of sale, a charge of which appellant was acquitted. Second, even if such evidence might have tended to reinforce the jury’s belief in his guilt on the charge of possession, there was overwhelming, competent and unchallenged evidence of possession before the jury so that admission of the contested evidence was harmless beyond any reasonable doubt. See Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 92 S.Ct. 2174, 33 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972); State v. Young, 283 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Nevels v. State, 351 So.2d 762 (Fla.1st DCA 1977).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with both possession and sale of a controlled substance (heroin). He was convicted by a jury of possession only. By this appeal, appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error when it admitted into evidence marked money allegedly paid for heroin purchased from him by an undercover policeman, since that evidence was illegally seized.

Even assuming, arguendo, that the challenged evidence should have been excluded, a point we do not reach, we find that any error in its admission was harmless for two reasons. First, its primary relevance was to the charge of sale, a charge of which appellant was acquitted. Second, even if such evidence might have tended to reinforce the jury’s belief in his guilt on the charge of possession, there was overwhelming, competent and unchallenged evidence of possession before the jury so that admission of the contested evidence was harmless beyond any reasonable doubt. See Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 92 S.Ct. 2174, 33 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972); State v. Young, 283 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Nevels v. State, 351 So.2d 762 (Fla.1st DCA 1977).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 So. 2d 856, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15433, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliot-v-state-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack