ALPHONZO CARTER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed the appellant's convictions due to two trial errors, remanding for a new trial.
The appellant was convicted of trafficking and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, along with other drug offenses. Similar to a co-defendant's prior app…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conspiracy To Traffic In Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
A jury found the appellant and a code-fendant, Ernest Freeman, Jr., guilty of trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. Freeman was also found guilty of possessing cocaine and marijuana.
The appellant and Freeman filed separate appeals from their resulting convictions. Freeman’s appeal was heard first by another panel of this court which reversed and remanded for a new trial. Freeman v. State, 538 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Two trial errors identified in Freeman also appear with respect to the instant appeal. As in Freeman, we reverse the appellant’s conviction because of those errors and remand for a new trial.
The first error occurred when the state was permitted to elicit testimony from two different detectives which, as in Freeman, is fairly susceptible of being viewed as an improper comment upon the appellant’s right to remain silent. We fully adopt our reasoning in Freeman that the state has failed to meet its burden of convincing this court that the improper comments upon the appellant’s right to remain silent constituted harmless error. In Freeman, this court recounted testimony of a confidential informant which was permitted over the objection of the appellant as well as of Freeman. We will not repeat that testimony here; as in Freeman, we find that the state has offered us nothing from which we are able to conclude that the confidential informant’s testimony did not prejudice the appellant’s right to a fair trial.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
HALL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kaufman v. MacDONALD, 557 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 1990)…GRIMES, Justice. We review Kaufman v. MacDonald, 545 So. 2d 913, 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), in which the court certified as an issue of great public importance the following question: Does the holding in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985) preclude an attorney’s— fee in a medic…
Authorities Cited
- Freeman v. State, 538 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)