WILLIAM JOHNSON, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed Johnson's tampering with evidence conviction because trial testimony characterizing the arrest location as a high-crime, predominantly black neighborhood constituted impermissible guilt by association.
Evidence that the arrest location was a high-crime area constitutes reversible error when used to suggest guilt by association.
[1] Testimony identifying an arrest location as a high-crime area constitutes impermissible guilt by association and is reversible error.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“it is a predominantly black neighborhood, but very well known for high school narcotics, prostitution to robberies and burglaries.”
Officer's testimony describing the arrest location during trial
Johnson was arrested for allegedly crumbling a cocaine rock and disposing of it in water. At trial, arresting officers testified extensively about the…
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 Guilt By Association cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William Johnson appeals his conviction of tampering with evidence. Specifically, Johnson was alleged to have crumbled a cocaine rock in his fist and to have disposed of the powdery residue in a puddle of water. At trial the two arresting officers testified at length about their experience in narcotics arrests and the reputation of the location where the arrest was made as a high crime area. Illustrative is the following description from the testimony of one of the officers: “it is a predominantly black neighborhood, but very well known for high school narcotics, prostitution to robberies and burglaries.”
This type of guilt by association trial tactic has been universally condemned as constituting reversible error. Black v. State, 545 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Beneby v. State, 354 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied., 359 So. 2d 1220 (Fla.1978); Buckann v. State, 356 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). See also Lockett v. State, 527 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
We so hold and reverse for a new trial.
As we did in Gillion v. State, 547 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), we certify the following question as one of great public importance:
DOES THE MERE IDENTIFICATION OF A LOCATION AS A HIGH CRIME AREA UNDULY PREJUDICE A DEFENDANT WHO IS ARRESTED THERE?
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., and DELL, J., concur. STONE, J., concurs specially with opinion.
STONE, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur separately to note that a portion of the testimony in question was properly admitted to assist the jury in interpreting the evidence. However, some of the officers’ testimony, including the statement quoted, was clearly irrelevant and possibly prejudicial. In another case, such testimony might well be harmless error. But the error is not harmless here because there was disputed testimony on the key issue of what the defendant said and did which evidenced tampering.
The offending testimony alone does not require reversal per se. See Gillion v. State. It seems to me that in Black v. State and the other cited cases, in which similar language has been deemed reversible error, there was a much more direct implication of guilt by association than in this case. Nevertheless, applying the standard in State v. Diguilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), the error here was not harmless.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Gillion v. State, 573 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1991)…A DEFENDANT WHO IS ARRESTED THERE? Id. at 720. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. In answering the question as stated, we hold that such an identification could be unduly prejudicial under some circumstances, see Johnson v. State, 559 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), but is not always so. Under the facts of this case the prosecutor elicited the following information concerning the area in which the charged criminal activities took place: PROSECUTOR: On that evening, what did you observe in…
-
Jackson v. State, 89 So. 3d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…the context of a drug charge when “the two arresting officers testified at length about their experience in narcotics arrests and the reputation of the location where the arrest was made as a high crime area” well known for drugs. Johnson v. State, 559 So. 2d 729, 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); see also Wheeler v. State, 690 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (same). Likewise, we reversed a conviction for possession of heroin where the prosecutor stated that the area where the defendant was arrested was known for dru…
-
Odell Wheeler v. State, 690 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…rrest by stating: Well, there had been several narcotic arrests made in that area; and the bar at 22nd and Sims has quite a reputation for narcotics in that area. That was the reason we went up there in that alley. Id. at 99. In Johnson v. State, 559 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), approved, 575 So. 2d 1292 (Fla.1991), our court reversed a conviction where at trial the two arresting officers testified about their experience in narcotics arrests and that the location of the arrest had a reputation as a high…
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
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Beneby v. State, 354 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Buckhann v. State, 356 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Oliveira v. State, 527 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Carlton Black v. State, 545 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Gillion v. State, 547 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)