Graddy v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Graddy v. State

606 So. 2d 1242, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11054, 1992 WL 301831

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 21, 1992

DocketNo. 91-04253

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 606 So. 2d 1242 (Graddy 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

Graddy v. State, 606 So. 2d 1242, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11054, 1992 WL 301831 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

THREADGILL, Judge.

Frank Graddy was charged with and convicted of delivery of cocaine, possession with intent to deliver, and possession with [1243]*1243intent to use drug paraphernalia.¹ He challenges his convictions on the ground that the trial court erred in denying him the right to the concluding argument before the jury in violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.250. We reverse.

The appellant was arrested in a sting operation during which a confidential informant purchased two pieces of crack cocaine from him. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked the officer who searched the informant’s car before the sting to hold up the baggie containing the two pieces of cocaine purchased from the appellant and marked as a state’s exhibit for identification. Upon the state’s motion, the trial court ordered the cocaine into evidence as a defense exhibit. As a result the appellant lost the right to open and close in closing argument.

The right to open and close is a vested procedural right, the denial of which constitutes reversible error. Birge v. State, 92 So.2d 819 (Fla.1957). As in Birge the mere exhibition of evidence before the jury by the state’s witness did not constitute the introduction of testimony on behalf of the appellant because defense counsel did not offer or intend to offer the cocaine into evidence. Moreover in this case the baggie had already been marked for identification by the state and was necessary to a conviction against the appellant. See Paulk v. State, 405 So.2d 785, 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) and Crosby v. State, 90 Fla. 381, 106 So. 741 (1925) (evidence not part of state’s case).

We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

HALL, A.C.J., and BLUE, JJ., concur.

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

THREADGILL, Judge.

Frank Graddy was charged with and convicted of delivery of cocaine, possession with intent to deliver, and possession with [1243]*1243intent to use drug paraphernalia.¹ He challenges his convictions on the ground that the trial court erred in denying him the right to the concluding argument before the jury in violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.250. We reverse.

The appellant was arrested in a sting operation during which a confidential informant purchased two pieces of crack cocaine from him. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked the officer who searched the informant’s car before the sting to hold up the baggie containing the two pieces of cocaine purchased from the appellant and marked as a state’s exhibit for identification. Upon the state’s motion, the trial court ordered the cocaine into evidence as a defense exhibit. As a result the appellant lost the right to open and close in closing argument.

The right to open and close is a vested procedural right, the denial of which constitutes reversible error. Birge v. State, 92 So.2d 819 (Fla.1957). As in Birge the mere exhibition of evidence before the jury by the state’s witness did not constitute the introduction of testimony on behalf of the appellant because defense counsel did not offer or intend to offer the cocaine into evidence. Moreover in this case the baggie had already been marked for identification by the state and was necessary to a conviction against the appellant. See Paulk v. State, 405 So.2d 785, 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) and Crosby v. State, 90 Fla. 381, 106 So. 741 (1925) (evidence not part of state’s case).

We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

HALL, A.C.J., and BLUE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 So. 2d 1242, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11054, 1992 WL 301831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graddy-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack