Watts v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Watts v. State

192 So. 3d 718, 2016 WL 3191116, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8900

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 9, 2016

DocketNo. 1D15-1927

StatusPublished

This text of 192 So. 3d 718 (Watts 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

Watts v. State, 192 So. 3d 718, 2016 WL 3191116, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8900 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issue presented is whether the State’s introduction of and use in closing argument of testimony (such as law enforcement’s recognition of defendant’s nickname from a list of drug dealers and because'they had previously arrested him, as well'as a confidential informant’s statement-that he had bought drugs'from defendant in the past) without objection by defense counsel was sufficiently prejudicial [719]*719that it constitutes fundamental error. While we agree that it was prejudicial, and denounce its use, we conclude that the quantum of evidence of defendant’s guilt is such that the error, if any, did not “reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” See State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-45 (Fla.1991) (explaining that the contemporaneous objection rule will not be imposed if, the error is fundamental).

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. WETHERELL, J., concurs in result.

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

PER CURIAM.

The issue presented is whether the State’s introduction of and use in closing argument of testimony (such as law enforcement’s recognition of defendant’s nickname from a list of drug dealers and because'they had previously arrested him, as well'as a confidential informant’s statement-that he had bought drugs'from defendant in the past) without objection by defense counsel was sufficiently prejudicial [719]*719that it constitutes fundamental error. While we agree that it was prejudicial, and denounce its use, we conclude that the quantum of evidence of defendant’s guilt is such that the error, if any, did not “reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged error.” See State v. Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-45 (Fla.1991) (explaining that the contemporaneous objection rule will not be imposed if, the error is fundamental).

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. WETHERELL, J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 So. 3d 718, 2016 WL 3191116, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watts-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack