ANTHONY LEROY HAROLD, 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.
Anthony Harold appealed his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana, challenging the sufficiency of evidence and the trial court's admission of evidence regarding his failure to appear for trial. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions, finding the evidence sufficient and the failure-to-appear evidence admissible as flight evidence indicating consciousness of guilt.
The court affirmed the convictions. Flight evidence is admissible as relevant to consciousness of guilt where there is sufficient evidence the defendant fled to avoid prosecution of the charged offense. Harold's abrupt departure from the courthouse after jury selection constituted sufficient evidence of flight to avoid prosecution. The sufficiency of evidence challenge was patently without merit given Harold's own admission.
[1] Evidence of a defendant's departure from the courthouse after jury selection is admissible as relevant to consciousness of guilt, indicating a desire to avoid prosecution…
[2] Flight evidence is admissible when there is sufficient evidence that the defendant fled to avoid prosecution of the charged offense.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Flight evidence is admissible as relevant to the defendant's consciousness of guilt where there is sufficient evidence that the defendant fled to avoid prosecution of the charged offense.”
Establishes the standard for admitting flight evidence, not limited to immediate departure from crime scene but applicable to later conduct showing desire to avoid prosecution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarold admitted to a state trooper that he and an accomplice had stolen cocaine and marijuana from a drug dealer in Fort Pierce. Harold was arrested a…
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 Flight As Evidence Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The appellant Harold appeals his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana. His first point on appeal concerning the sufficiency of the evidence is patently without merit in light of his admission to a state trooper that he and his accomplice “had ripped them (the cocaine and marijuana) off from a drug dealer in Ft. Pierce.” See State v. Fort, 380 So. 2d 534, 536 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Harold’s second point on appeal challenges the trial court’s admission of evidence, and subsequent jury charge, regarding his conviction for failure to appear for a previous trial date in the case. Harold argues that such evidence did not show “flight” since the incident occurred after arrest and initiation of prosecution. Harold contends that flight, as evidence of guilt, must occur immediately after commission of the crime charged in an effort to avoid detection or prosecution. He relies on two cases in support of this argument: Noeling v. State, 40 So. 2d 120 (Fla.1949) and Williams v. State, 378 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
We do not read either case as narrowly as does the appellant. Although Noeling stated that flight “is usually considered to exist when the accused departs from the vicinity of the crime,” it certainly did not confine the definition of flight to that narrow limitation. In Williams, we simply held that the evidence did not factually support a flight instruction.
More to the point is the recent Florida Supreme Court case of Merritt v. State, 523 So. 2d 573 (Fla.1988), wherein it held: “Flight evidence is admissible as relevant to the defendant’s consciousness of guilt where there is sufficient evidence that the defendant fled to avoid prosecution of the charged offense.” It is readily apparent that a defendant’s abrupt departure from the courthouse after jury selection indicates a desire to avoid prosecution of the charged offenses. Moreover, the evidence of the defendant’s flight was introduced at trial by the state without objection. As we have previously held: “Even when a prior motion in limine has been denied, the failure to object at the time collateral crime evidence is introduced waives the issue for appellate review.” Anderson v. State, 549 So. 2d 807, 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 560 So. 2d 232 (Fla.1990); Thomas v. State, 424 So. 2d 193, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Fort, 380 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Merritt v. State, 523 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 1988)
- Winzer Leon Thomas v. State, 424 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Williams v. State, 378 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Frazier v. State, 549 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Anderson v. State, 549 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)