ALBERT JEFFERSON, 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 affirmed cocaine sale conviction, holding that a confidential informant's testimony identifying the location as a high-crime area was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant mistrial.
A confidential informant's incidental reference to a high-crime area during testimony explaining his investigative role does not constitute reversible error requiring mistrial.
[1] Incidental reference by a confidential informant to a high-crime area during testimony explaining his investigative role does not constitute reversible error requiring mi…
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 intelligenceJefferson was arrested in a sting operation after selling cocaine to a confidential informant in a monitored transaction. During the State's examinati…
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 High Crime Area cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Albert Jefferson appeals his conviction for sale and possession of cocaine. He was caught in a sting operation in which he sold cocaine to a confidential informant in a monitored operation. He contends the judge erred when he refused to grant a mistrial after the confidential informant, in responding to the State’s inquiry as to what his job as a confidential informant entailed, stated:
I am ... I have identified to me various areas where narcotics activities are taking place by different agencies and under controlled conditions, I am injected into these situations where I identify individuals and purchase illegal substances from different people.
Appellant contends that this reference unduly prejudiced him in attacking his character by indicating he was in a “high crime area.” He relies on Beneby v. State, 354 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). While it is possible to distinguish Beneby from the case at bar, we agree with the majority opinion in Gillion v. State, 547 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (question certified) that the mere identification of a neighborhood as a high crime area should not be reversible per se. After all, even in a high crime area the great majority of people may well be law abiding citizens. In this case the witness merely explained why he was sent to the particular location — and why he was monitored. This testimony was not sufficiently prejudicial to require a mistrial. See Marek v. State, 492 So. 2d 1055 (Fla.1986).
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W. and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E.M. v. State, 61 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…tion took place in a "high drug area” is unduly prejudicial to a defendant depends on the facts and circumstances associated with each case. Black v. State, 578 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1991); Gillion v. State, 573 So. 2d 810 (Fla.1991); Jefferson v. State, 560 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 574 So. 2d 141 (Fla.1990). Reversible error has been found where such references become a feature of the trial and are highlighted in closing argument. Gillion; Beneby. Courts also consider whether the testimony is bei…
-
Lelieve v. State, 7 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…ion took place in a “high drug area” is unduly prejudicial to a defendant depends on the facts and circumstances associated with each case. Black v. State, 578 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1991); Gillion v. State, 573 So. 2d 810 (Fla.1991); Jefferson v. State, 560 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 574 So. 2d 141 (Fla.1990).... Courts also consider whether the testimony is being offered to establish a chain of events or whether it is being offered solely to establish bad character or propensity. Dorsey v. State,…
-
Johnson v. State, 670 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…tion took place in a “high drug area” is unduly prejudicial to a defendant depends on the facts and circumstances associated with each case. Black v. State, 578 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1991); Gillion v. State, 573 So. 2d 810 (Fla.1991); Jefferson v. State, 560 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 574 So. 2d 141 (Fla.1990). Reversible error has been found where such references become a feature of the trial and are highlighted in closing argument. Gillion; Bene-by. Courts also consider whether the testimony is be…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beneby v. State, 354 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Marek v. State, 492 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1986)
- Gillion v. State, 547 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)