Florio v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Florio v. State

554 So. 2d 633, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7364, 1989 WL 155653

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 28, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2515

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 554 So. 2d 633 (Florio 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

Florio v. State, 554 So. 2d 633, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7364, 1989 WL 155653 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial. The appellant was prosecuted for a drug transaction set up by an informant and defended on the grounds that he and his girlfriend were entrapped by the informant into securing the cocaine for the transaction. The state concedes that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence, over objection, referring to a witness’s out-of-court conversation with the informant in which the informant stated that the appellant’s codefendant-girlfriend had previously said that she could supply cocaine to the informant. We cannot conclude that the error was harmless under the strict test set out in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

In addition, although we find no error in the trial court’s ruling that a police officer could properly describe the circumstances of the drug transaction and the appellant’s conduct and demeanor, it would not be proper for the officer to express an opinion, based upon the appellant’s demeanor, as to whether the appellant had sold drugs before. Finally, we reject appellant’s claim that the prosecuting attorney made an improper argument to the jury.

ANSTEAD, DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial. The appellant was prosecuted for a drug transaction set up by an informant and defended on the grounds that he and his girlfriend were entrapped by the informant into securing the cocaine for the transaction. The state concedes that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence, over objection, referring to a witness’s out-of-court conversation with the informant in which the informant stated that the appellant’s codefendant-girlfriend had previously said that she could supply cocaine to the informant. We cannot conclude that the error was harmless under the strict test set out in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

In addition, although we find no error in the trial court’s ruling that a police officer could properly describe the circumstances of the drug transaction and the appellant’s conduct and demeanor, it would not be proper for the officer to express an opinion, based upon the appellant’s demeanor, as to whether the appellant had sold drugs before. Finally, we reject appellant’s claim that the prosecuting attorney made an improper argument to the jury.

ANSTEAD, DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

554 So. 2d 633, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 7364, 1989 WL 155653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florio-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack