ANTHONY HOWARD WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Admissibility Of Expert Opinion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The trial court did not err in permitting the state to introduce, as relevant evidence, the cash seized in the arrest. See United States v. Cruz, 797 F. 2d 90 (2d Cir.1986); United States v. Dinovo, 523 F. 2d 197 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1016, 96 S.Ct. 449, 46 L.Ed.2d 387 (1975); §§ 90.401, 90.-402, 90.403, Fla.Stat. (1987). Nor was there an abuse of discretion in finding that the prejudicial effect of admitting the evidence did not outweigh its probative value. Cf. United States v. Spell, 789 F. 2d 143 (2d Cir.1986). We also find no error in allowing an officer with specialized knowledge to express his opinion on the relationship between large amounts of cash and drug transactions. Cf. Hosbein v. Silverstein, 358 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 365.So. 2d 714 (Fla.1978); United States v. Ginsberg, 758 F. 2d 823 (2d Cir.1985); United States v. Daniels, 723 F. 2d 31 (8th Cir.1983). Therefore, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ„ concur. WALDEN, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Lowder v. State, 589 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…eight afforded the officer’s assertions, but rather the admissibility of his opinion testimony. An officer with specialized knowledge can express his opinion on the relationship between large amounts of cash and drug transactions. Williams v. State, 538 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Accordingly, I would affirm.…1 / 2
-
Antwain Gamble v. State, 644 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…tention that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the narcotics officers to testify concerning the packaging of cocaine because the specific legal ground argued on appeal was not presented to the trial court. 4. In Williams v. State, 538 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), the court approved the trial court’s allowance of an expert’s testimony on the general relationship between large amounts of cash and drug transactions. The testimony was not case specific. 5. In Lobo v. Metro-Dade Police Dept.…1 / 2
-
Mutcherson v. State, 696 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…herson committed the burglaries. See, e.g, Council v. State, 691 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (gun in defendant’s possession three weeks after armed robbery was admissible despite discrepancies in witness’s description of gun); Williams v. State, 538 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (cash seized during defendant’s arrest was relevant to prove defendant possessed cocaine with intent to sell). The Williams rule argument presents two issues. First, Mr. Mutcherson argues that the burglaries lack sufficient comm…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Ginsberg, 758 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1985)
- United States v. Cruz, 797 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1986)
- Di Novo v. United States, 423 U.S. 1016 (U.S. 1975)
- Sac and Fox Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. United States, 423 U.S. 1016 (U.S. 1975)
- United States v. Daniels, 723 F.2d 31 (8th Cir. 1983)
- United States v. Myron DiNOVO and Janet DiNovo, 523 F.2d 197 (7th Cir. 1975)
- Hosbein v. Roslyn Silverstein, 358 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- United States v. Spell, 789 F.2d 143 (2d Cir. 1986)