DARION WHITE, 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.
Darion White was convicted of cocaine delivery based on an undercover officer's observation of a hand-to-hand transaction. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred by allowing the officer to testify about typical patterns in other drug cases, as such generalized testimony improperly invites the jury to infer guilt based on similarity to other criminals rather than evidence specific to the defendant.
Yes. The trial court erred by allowing the officer's testimony about patterns in other drug cases. Such testimony violates a defendant's right to be tried on the evidence specific to his case and improperly invites the jury to infer guilt based on similarity to other criminals' typical behavior patterns.
[1] A defendant has the right to be tried based solely on the evidence presented against him, not on the general characteristics or conduct of a class of criminals.
[2] Testimony from police officers regarding their experiences with other criminals is generally inadmissible as substantive proof of a particular defendant's guilt or innoce…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“every defendant has the right to be tried based on the evidence against him, not on the characteristics or conduct of certain classes of criminals in general.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that conviction must be based on evidence specific to the defendant, not generalized characteristics of criminal classes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Genna was working undercover as a drug buyer when he met Lucas Pitters on West Broward Boulevard. Pitters pointed to appellant White and anoth…
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 Prior Bad Acts Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Darion White, charged by information with delivery of cocaine, appeals his conviction and sentence. He argues that the trial court erred when it permitted Officer Genna to testify about what occurs in other drug cases. We reverse.
Officer Joseph Genna was working undercover posing as a drug buyer when he met Lucas Pitters on West Broward Boulevard. After a brief discussion about money, Pitters pointed across the street where appellant and another man stood. Pitters walked across Broward Boulevard and approached appellant. Officer Genna, about sixty feet away, saw a hand to hand transaction occur where appellant put what was in his pocket into Pitters’ hand. Genna testified that although he could not see what was transferred, Pitters walked back to him with the object still in his hand. Genna gave him twenty dollars and received a piece of crack cocaine. Genna also testified that when he asked for more cocaine as he waited for the arrest team, Fitters spit out the piece of crack cocaine he just put in his mouth and sold it to Genna for ten dollars.
Over appellant’s objection, the State asked Genna why Pitters would not have the crack cocaine on his person during the initial encounter. The trial court overruled the objection, and Genna responded, “In a lot of these cases one individual will hold the drugs, another will solicit the sale. At that point, once the transaction has occurred, either a monetary payment is given to the solicitor or the payment is given in narcotics [in] exchange for them facilitate the dealing.” The jury found appellant guilty of delivery of cocaine.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it permitted Officer Genna to testify about what happens in “a lot of these cases.”
[E]very defendant has the right to be tried based on the evidence against him, not on the characteristics or conduct of certain classes of criminals in general. Florida courts have frequently criticized the use of testimony from police officers regarding their experience with other criminals as substantive proof of a particular defendant’s guilt or innocence.
Lowder v. State, 589 So. 2d 933, 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), cause dismissed, 598 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1992). In Thomas v. State, 673 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), the prosecutor asked a detective why it happens in a drug transaction that one person is in possession of drugs and another collects money. The detective testified to those reasons, and this court concluded that such testimony should not have been permitted to prove the defendant’s guilt. Id. at 158. Testimony about a detective’s past experiences is generally not permitted because Dean v. State, 690 So. 2d 720, 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); see also Shelton v. State, 654 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
[it] allows a jury to consider not only the facts relevant to that defendant’s case but also events at other points in time unrelated to the defendant’s conduct. The jury is asked to infer that because defendant’s behavior was similar to the behavior of other drug dealers that the officer had previously arrested or observed, defendant must be guilty.
We reject the State’s argument that Officer Genna’s testimony was harmless error, and we reverse and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.'
DELL, FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawrence v. State, 766 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…concerning characteristic patterns in a type of criminal activity was inadmissible. In a number of cases, this court has held that testimony of generalized common practices among drug dealers is not admissible as proof of guilt. See White v. State, 730 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Moore v. State, 711 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Dunning v. State, 695 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Dean v. State, 690 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Shelton v. State, 654 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In Dean, Judge…
-
White v. State, 971 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Dean v. State, 690 So. 2d 720, 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Such testimony asks a jury to infer that the defendant is guilty because his behavior was similar to the behavior of others who committed similar crimes. See White v. State, 730 So. 2d 715, 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). This type of testimony is relevant because it tends to prove guilt; that a defendant engaged in conduct similar to other drug dealers would be admissible in a motion hearing on the issue of probable cause. See § 90.401, Fla…
-
Batten v. State, 770 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…icer’s testimony regarding procedures common to other drug sales is admitted as substantive proof of the defendant’s guilt, reversible error results. (citations omitted); accord Lawrence v. State, 766 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); White v. State, 730 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Dunning v. State, 695 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s convictions and sentences and remand for a new trial. REVERSED and REMANDED. TAYLOR, J. and LENDERMAN, JOHN C., Associate Judge, concur…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lowder v. State, 589 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Dean v. State, 690 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Shelton v. State, 654 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Carrington Thomas v. State, 673 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)