Jefferson v. State

560 So. 2d 1374, 1990 WL 59200
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 10, 1990
Docket89-998
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 560 So. 2d 1374 (Jefferson 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
Jefferson v. State, 560 So. 2d 1374, 1990 WL 59200 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

560 So.2d 1374 (1990)

Albert JEFFERSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 89-998.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 10, 1990.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Kenneth Witts, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Colin Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

HARRIS, Judge.

Albert Jefferson appeals his conviction for sale and possession of cocaine. He was caught in a sting operation in which he sold cocaine to a confidential informant in a monitored operation. He contends the judge erred when he refused to grant a mistrial after the confidential informant, in responding to the State's inquiry as to what his job as a confidential informant entailed, stated:

I am ... I have identified to me various areas where narcotics activities are taking place by different agencies and under controlled conditions, I am injected into these situations where I identify individuals and purchase illegal substances from different people.

Appellant contends that this reference unduly prejudiced him in attacking his character by indicating he was in a "high crime area." He relies on Beneby v. State, 354 So.2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). While it is possible to distinguish Beneby from the case at bar, we agree with the majority opinion in Gillion v. State, 547 So.2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (question certified) that the mere identification of a neighborhood as a high crime area should not be reversible per se. After all, even in a high crime area the great majority of people may well be law abiding citizens. In this case the witness merely explained why he was sent to the particular location — and why he was monitored. This testimony was not sufficiently prejudicial to require a mistrial. See Marek v. State, 492 So.2d 1055 (Fla. 1986).

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, W. and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

EM v. State
61 So. 3d 1255 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
LELIEVE v. State
7 So. 3d 624 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
West v. State
702 So. 2d 1365 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Johnson v. State
670 So. 2d 1121 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Brown v. State
570 So. 2d 427 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Davis v. State
562 So. 2d 443 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
560 So. 2d 1374, 1990 WL 59200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jefferson-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.