King v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

King v. State

296 So. 2d 62, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6916

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 25, 1974

DocketNo. V-140

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 296 So. 2d 62 (King 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

King v. State, 296 So. 2d 62, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6916 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of his convictions, entered pursuant to jury verdicts, for the crimes of possession of a controlled substance (heroin) and possession of less than five grams of marijuana.

His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in not compelling the State to disclose the identity of a confidential informant who introduced the State’s primary witness to the appellant. Wé have carefully examined the briefs submitted by the parties and the record on appeal. It appearing therefrom that appellant failed-to raise this issue in his motion for new trial, failed to assign this issue as error in his Assignments of Error and failed to establish either by a motion for disclosure or by the evidence that the testimony of the confidential informant would be of such essential relevancy or materiality as to justify or require disclosure of his identity, the judgments and sentences appealed herein are affirmed. Doe v. State, 262 So.2d 11 (Fla.App.3rd, 1972).

Affirmed.

SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and BOYER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of his convictions, entered pursuant to jury verdicts, for the crimes of possession of a controlled substance (heroin) and possession of less than five grams of marijuana.

His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in not compelling the State to disclose the identity of a confidential informant who introduced the State’s primary witness to the appellant. Wé have carefully examined the briefs submitted by the parties and the record on appeal. It appearing therefrom that appellant failed-to raise this issue in his motion for new trial, failed to assign this issue as error in his Assignments of Error and failed to establish either by a motion for disclosure or by the evidence that the testimony of the confidential informant would be of such essential relevancy or materiality as to justify or require disclosure of his identity, the judgments and sentences appealed herein are affirmed. Doe v. State, 262 So.2d 11 (Fla.App.3rd, 1972).

Affirmed.

SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and BOYER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 So. 2d 62, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 6916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-state-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack