ERNEST MICHAELS, 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.
Ernest Michaels appealed his conviction for trafficking in cannabis on three grounds: (1) the trial court's handling of confidential informant disclosure; (2) improper cross-examination questioning about gunrunning; and (3) a third unspecified issue. The Fourth District affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion regarding the informant's address, and holding that any prosecutorial misconduct was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence.
The court affirmed the conviction on all grounds. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disclose the informant's address under the Richardson standard. Any prosecutorial misconduct regarding the gunrunning question was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The third issue also constituted harmless error if error occurred at all.
[1] A defendant seeking disclosure of a confidential informant's address must demonstrate that such disclosure is necessary to prepare a defense, and that the informant's tes…
[2] A trial court has discretion to order the production of a confidential informant for deposition, even if the state does not intend to call the informant as a witness.
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“The defense has failed to show prejudice. We find no abuse of discretion and no error.”
The court's holding regarding the trial court's decision to withhold the confidential informant's address and the overall handling of informant disclosure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichaels was convicted of trafficking in cannabis. He claimed entrapment. The state's case relied on a confidential informant who had worked on numero…
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 Trafficking In Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
The defendant was convicted of trafficking in cannabis. He claimed entrapment and moved for the pretrial disclosure of a confidential informant. Several hearings were held in which the officers testified as to the informant’s limited participation in the undercover operation. An in camera hearing was held with the informant in which defense counsel participated. The informant’s name was known to the defense, but the state would not disclose his address. The informant had worked on a dozen or more cases resulting in numerous convictions, and feared for his safety if his address were known. The defense sought thé address in anticipation that it might lead to impeachment information. The state did not plan to ask the informant to testify and had so advised the court. Before the start of the trial, the judge ordered the state to produce the informant for deposition. The state advised the court that they were not able to contact him. After the trial had started, the informant was produced by the state for deposition.
After the defendant testified, the state announced its intention to call the witness in rebuttal. A hearing was held pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971), in which the court found that the state had acted in good faith and the defense had not been prejudiced. The witness had not been sequestered by the police nor the state. . The state then decided not to call the informant as a rebuttal witness, whereupon the defense elected to call him as their witness. The defense has failed to show prejudice. We find no abuse of discretion and no error. Richardson. See also Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957).
The second point on appeal concerns a question asked of the defendant by the state attorney on cross-examination. The assistant state attorney asked the defendant, following direct testimony regarding the sale of guns, whether he had engaged in gunrunning. A motion for a mistrial was denied, and the defense rejected an offer of a curative instruction. Nevertheless, the court gave the instruction. The state’s question was clearly improper, however, the proof against defendant was overwhelming. As such, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the misconduct did not contribute to the conviction. See State v. Diguilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986); State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1984). With respect to the third issue raised, error, if any, was also harmless.
ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Picked v. State, 32 So. 3d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…t has held a Richardson hearing, its decision is subject to reversal only upon a showing that it abused its discretion. See Gethers v. State, 620 So. 2d 201, 202 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Banda v. State, 536 So. 2d 221, 223 (Fla.1988); Michaels v. State, 505 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Whites v. State, 730 So. 2d 762, 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Smith v. State, 499 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). “Discretion is abused only where no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court.” Cox v. State,…
-
Bacallao v. State, 513 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…n arrested on a previous occasion). Second, the evidence pointing to the defendant’s guilt is so overwhelming that we may confortably conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any error resulting from the comment was harmless. See Michaels v. State, 505 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Llida v. State, 501 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1957)
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1984)