Mosely v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mosely v. State

1 So. 3d 261, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 24, 2009 WL 18691

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 5, 2009

Docket4D07-4195

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1 So. 3d 261 (Mosely 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

Mosely v. State, 1 So. 3d 261, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 24, 2009 WL 18691 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

KLEIN, J.

Appellant was charged with and convicted of possession of cocaine. He argues that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence the fact that he had $200 in his pocket when he was arrested. We reverse.

A detective testified that he observed two people, one flagging down cars in a commercial area. As the officer approached, they started to walk away and appellant dropped cocaine rocks. When the officer picked the rocks up, appellant told him they were fake; however, they tested positive for cocaine. Appellant also had $200 in his pocket.

Over appellant’s objection, the trial court allowed the officer to testify that appellant had $200 in his pocket when he was arrested. Appellant argues that, because he was charged only with possession, the evidence of money found in his pocket was irrelevant and prejudicial. Appellant’s argument is supported by the factually similar cases of Buitrago v. State, 950 So.2d 531, 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), and Ferguson v. State, 697 So.2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), in which we held that, in possession cases, evidence of money found on the defendant was irrelevant and prejudicial.

The state relies on Holmes v. State, 710 So.2d 651, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), but in Holmes the defendant was charged with trafficking, which made the cash relevant. Accordingly, as we did in Buitrago and Ferguson, we reverse for a new trial.

FARMER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

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

KLEIN, J.

Appellant was charged with and convicted of possession of cocaine. He argues that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence the fact that he had $200 in his pocket when he was arrested. We reverse.

A detective testified that he observed two people, one flagging down cars in a commercial area. As the officer approached, they started to walk away and appellant dropped cocaine rocks. When the officer picked the rocks up, appellant told him they were fake; however, they tested positive for cocaine. Appellant also had $200 in his pocket.

Over appellant’s objection, the trial court allowed the officer to testify that appellant had $200 in his pocket when he was arrested. Appellant argues that, because he was charged only with possession, the evidence of money found in his pocket was irrelevant and prejudicial. Appellant’s argument is supported by the factually similar cases of Buitrago v. State, 950 So.2d 531, 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), and Ferguson v. State, 697 So.2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), in which we held that, in possession cases, evidence of money found on the defendant was irrelevant and prejudicial.

The state relies on Holmes v. State, 710 So.2d 651, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), but in Holmes the defendant was charged with trafficking, which made the cash relevant. Accordingly, as we did in Buitrago and Ferguson, we reverse for a new trial.

FARMER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 So. 3d 261, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 24, 2009 WL 18691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mosely-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack