JOSE PEREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Comment On Silence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jose Perez appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine. We affirm.
First, assuming arguendo the prosecutor’s comments during opening statement were improper, the trial court acted within the bounds of sound discretion in giving a curative instruction, rather than ordering a mistrial. Second, in the unusual circumstances of the present case, the trial court had discretion to limit the cross-examination under section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1987). cf. Duncomb v. State, 237 So. 2d 86, 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (“the cross-examination which was presented ... sufficiently placed the jury in a position to consider ... the credibility of the witnesses”). Third, the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant. See Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); Lawson v. State, 319 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Fourth, the prosecutor’s closing argument did not constitute a comment on silence. See White v. State, 377 So. 2d 1149 (Fla.1979), habeas corpus denied, 386 So. 2d 643 (Fla.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 845, 101 S.Ct. 129, 66 L.Ed.2d 54 (1980); Whitfield v. State, 479 So. 2d 208, 216-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 929 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…h an element of the crime at trial. This is particularly so because presumptive tests conducted by a field officer alone are not sufficient to establish a prima facie case; FDLE reports are often vital to the State’s prosecution.1 See L.R. v. State, 557 So. 2d 121 [*8] (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (finding that a positive presumptive test for cocaine was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of possession). The business records exception may have been the vehicle for admitting the report, but the vehicle does no…
-
Bell v. State, 179 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…, 75 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) for its conclusion that the probation officer’s testimony constituted hearsay. Bray does not analyze the question either, but declares the testimony to be hearsay based upon that panel’s reading of L.R. v. State, 557 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d [*356] DCA 1990) and Weaver, 543 So. 2d 443. L.R. is not a VOP case, and more significantly, does not even mention hearsay. • In Weaver, as already discussed, the Third District Court of Appeal concluded that the probation officer’s testimo…
-
Smith v. State, 771 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…h wrapped in plastic that contained a residue which tested positive for cocaine in a field test, and that based on his professional training and experience it was a device typically used as a filter on a crack pipe. Appellant cites to L.R. v. State, 557 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) as authority for the proposition that a positive field test of a substance suspected to be cocaine is insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for possession of cocaine. Appellant was not charged with possession of cocaine, b…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1983)
- White v. State, 377 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1979)
- Strickland v. Roosevelt Cnty. Rural Elec. Coop., 463 U.S. 1209 (U.S. 1983)
- Sena v. United States, 463 U.S. 1209 (U.S. 1983)
- Whitfield v. State, 479 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Hudson v. Maryland, 449 U.S. 845 (U.S. 1980)
- Brown v. Mitchell, 449 U.S. 845 (U.S. 1980)
- Gus Duncomb v. State, 237 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Andrews v. State, 319 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Lawson v. State, 319 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)