Montaque v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Montaque v. State

699 So. 2d 279, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9695, 1997 WL 530568

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 27, 1997

DocketNo. 96-3002

StatusPublished

This text of 699 So. 2d 279 (Montaque 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

Montaque v. State, 699 So. 2d 279, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9695, 1997 WL 530568 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell, contrary to section 893.13(l)(d)2, Florida Statutes (1995). The trial court correctly sustained appellant’s objection to the undercover officer’s testimony that his team went to the area of the arrest because of “many complaints [to the police department] regarding narcotics being sold [in the area].” See Wheeler v. State, 690 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In light of the trial court’s curative instruction, we find no error in the denial of appellant’s motion for mistrial.

The trial court correctly sustained two defense objections to the prosecutor’s closing argument. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge’s denial of appellant’s motion for mistrial. See Power v. State, 605 So.2d 856, 861 (Fla.1992).

AFFIRMED.

GLICKSTEIN, PARIENTE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell, contrary to section 893.13(l)(d)2, Florida Statutes (1995). The trial court correctly sustained appellant’s objection to the undercover officer’s testimony that his team went to the area of the arrest because of “many complaints [to the police department] regarding narcotics being sold [in the area].” See Wheeler v. State, 690 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In light of the trial court’s curative instruction, we find no error in the denial of appellant’s motion for mistrial.

The trial court correctly sustained two defense objections to the prosecutor’s closing argument. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial judge’s denial of appellant’s motion for mistrial. See Power v. State, 605 So.2d 856, 861 (Fla.1992).

AFFIRMED.

GLICKSTEIN, PARIENTE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

699 So. 2d 279, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 9695, 1997 WL 530568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montaque-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack