FRANK BIONDO, 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 held that the trial court did not err in allowing the state to prematurely rebut the defendant's entrapment defense and that evidence of prior crimes was admissible to show predisposition. While a prosecutor's comment was improper, it was not egregious enough to warrant reversal.
The defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine, drug paraphernalia, and conspiracy to traffic cocaine. The state introduced evidence of prior dr…
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 Improper Prosecutorial Comment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. .
We affirm defendant’s convictions for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine.
We do not agree with defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in permitting the state to rebut prematurely defendant’s entrapment defense before that defense had been raised. At the time the state introduced evidence in anticipation of the entrapment defense the defendant had already inserted that defense into the case through defense counsel’s opening statement and defense counsel’s cross-examination of a state witness.
Also we do not agree with defendant’s contention that the testimony of two witnesses for the state as to other crimes committed by defendant was not properly admitted into evidence. The testimony of the two state witnesses indicated that defendant had previously sold cocaine to them. Whether or not that constituted Williams Rule evidence,1 that testimony was properly admitted because it was relevant to rebut the entrapment defense by showing defendant’s predisposition to commit crimes of the type involved here. See Bryan v. State, 533 So. 2d 744, 745-46 (Fla. 1988).
We agree with defendant’s additional contention that the prosecutor’s reference in closing argument to defendant as “slime” was improper. See Duque v. State, .498 So. 2d 1334, 1337 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). However under all the circumstances we do not conclude that that impropriety by itself in this case was sufficiently egregious to require reversal.
Affirmed.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., LEHAN and THREADGILL, JJ., concur. . Section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (1983); Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Consalvo v. State, 697 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1996)…ue contradicted his statements.12 The appellant effectively opened the door to prose- [*815] cutorial comment on suicide since the testimony elicited by defense counsel on cross-examination suggested a potential suicide defense. Cf. Biondo v. State, 533 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)(holding state did not prematurely rebut defendant’s entrapment defense where state introduced evidence in anticipation of entrapment defense after defendant had inserted defense into case through opening statement and defense coun…
-
Perez v. State, 856 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…his prior conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell. Evidence of prior crimes is admissible because it is relevant to rebut the defense of entrapment by showing a predisposition to commit crimes of the type charged. Biondo v. State, 533 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Sampson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) is instructive: The absence of a defendant’s predisposition to commit the offense is the essential element of an entrapment defense. Herrera v. State, 594 So. 2d 275, 277 (Fla…
-
Algernon Sampson v. State, 645 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ocaine is analogous to an entrapment defense. When a defendant claims entrapment, evidence of prior crimes is admissible because it is relevant to rebut the defense by showing his predisposition to commit crimes of the type charged. Biondo v. State, 533 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The lower court admitted the testimony for the purpose of showing predisposition. We hold that the trial court ei’red and reverse. The absence of a defendant’s predisposition to commit the offense is the essential element of an…
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
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Williams v. Florida, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- White v. Illinois, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- Bryan v. State, 533 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1988)
- Duque v. State, 498 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)