Payne v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Payne v. State

562 So. 2d 372, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3555, 1990 WL 67306

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 23, 1990·No. No. 89-0975·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises two points. As to the first point, we reverse and remand for a new trial because of the absence of proof of the confidential informant’s consent to the taped conversation. See State v. Welker, 536 So.2d 1017 (Fla.1988). We find no merit to appellant’s second point; namely, her attack upon the information.

GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs. DELL, J., concurs specially with opinion. GARRETT, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises two points. As to the first point, we reverse and remand for a new trial because of the absence of proof of the confidential informant’s consent to the taped conversation. See State v. Welker, 536 So.2d 1017 (Fla.1988). We find no merit to appellant’s second point; namely, her attack upon the information.

GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs. DELL, J., concurs specially with opinion. GARRETT, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.

Payne v. State, 562 So. 2d 372, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 3555, 1990 WL 67306 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

562 So. 2d 372 (Payne v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related