LEE MARVIN ROBINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 any error in admitting testimony about the arrest area was cured by an instruction, and any error in admitting the cocaine was harmless because no probable tampering was shown.
[1] A curative instruction may be sufficient to correct an impermissible statement about a defendant's prior incarceration.
[2] A reference to a defendant's presence in a "high crime" area is subject to correction through a curative instruction.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by admitting testimony describing 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 Tampering With Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Robinson appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell. We affirm.
Defendant is correct in asserting that the trial court should have sustained the objections to the arresting officers’ description of the arrest area as a “high drug area” and “well-known area for the sale of narcotics” as well as their description of the lighting as “crime lights.” Cabral v. State, 550 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Reversal is not required, however, because the trial court later gave a curative instruction which we conclude was sufficient. Because an impermissible statement about a defendant’s prior incarceration is subject to being corrected by a curative instruction, see Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639, 642 (Fla.1982); Williams v. State, 354 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), a fortiori a reference to the defendant’s presence in a “high crime” area is subject to a correction through a curative instruction. See Huffman v. State, 500 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Even if that were not so, we conclude that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
No reversible error has been shown with respect to the admission into evidence of the cocaine rock. The defendant’s contention is that based on the repackaging of the contraband after analysis by police chemists, there was a “possibility” of tampering. There was an explanation by the chemist, however, as to when, by whom, and for what purpose the package was opened, which excluded any likelihood that the contents were altered. Because there was no indication whatever of “probable” tampering — the test adopted by this court — the trial court committed no error in overruling the defendant’s objection. Bernard v. State, 275 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); compare Dodd v. State, 537 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (conflicting descriptions of the contraband’s packaging, and gross discrepancies in weight of cocaine seized and that offered as evidence, sufficient indicators of probable tampering).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lowder v. State, 589 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ion v. State, 573 So. 2d 810 (Fla.1991). However, any error based on the characterization of the area is subject to harmless error analysis and can be cured by instructions from the court. Gillion v. State, 573 So. 2d at 812-813; Robinson v. State, 561 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The trial court properly sustained the objection, granted a motion to strike, and instructed the officer not to characterize the area. I find that the trial court committed no error. Furthermore, any error was harmless in light…
-
Hutchinson v. State, 580 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…handling of the cocaine and the reason for the different packaging is sufficient to overcome these concerns. The court did not err in the rulings on the identification and admission of the cocaine allegedly bought from Hutchinson. Robinson v. State, 561 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL. ERVIN and ZEHMER, JJ., concur. NIMMONS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion. . It should also be noted that the Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases prov…
-
Creme v. State, 752 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ocaine seized from defendant without requiring the state to establish a complete chain of custody for the substance where there was nothing of record which would support a reasonable probability of tampering with the evidence. See Robinson v. State, 561 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Stunson v. State, 228 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). We do, however, reverse Creme’s sentences and remand the case to the trial court for correction of the sentencing order so that it comports with the court’s oral pronouncemen…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1982)
- Dodd v. State, 537 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Williams v. State, 354 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Steinc v. State, 275 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Fidel Cabral v. State, 550 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Berkenfeld v. MGB Corp., 500 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)