Fryc v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fryc v. State

377 So. 2d 1013

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 1979

DocketNo. 79-935

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 377 So. 2d 1013 (Fryc 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

Fryc v. State, 377 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty of the possession of a controlled substance. At the time of the alleged incident, the defendant was a prisoner in the Monroe County Jail. Two points are argued on this appeal: (1) that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion to compel the State to provide him with the name and address of the confidential informant; and (2) that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.

The first point does not present error on this record because it does not appear that the name of the confidential informant was material to any defense raised by motion or at trial. The confidential informant was not mentioned by the State or the defense in the testimony at trial. See the principles of law discussed in State v. Hassberger, 350 So.2d 1 (Fla.1977).

There is evidence upon which the jury could find the defendant guilty despite his denial of knowledge of the controlled substance. See Heineman v. State, 327 So.2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty of the possession of a controlled substance. At the time of the alleged incident, the defendant was a prisoner in the Monroe County Jail. Two points are argued on this appeal: (1) that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion to compel the State to provide him with the name and address of the confidential informant; and (2) that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.

The first point does not present error on this record because it does not appear that the name of the confidential informant was material to any defense raised by motion or at trial. The confidential informant was not mentioned by the State or the defense in the testimony at trial. See the principles of law discussed in State v. Hassberger, 350 So.2d 1 (Fla.1977).

There is evidence upon which the jury could find the defendant guilty despite his denial of knowledge of the controlled substance. See Heineman v. State, 327 So.2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 So. 2d 1013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fryc-v-state-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack