GEORGE CONNER, 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.
Conner was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of cocaine sale or delivery. He challenged his conviction based on an investigator's characterization of the bar where the transactions occurred as a place where "drug activity goes on," arguing the testimony was unduly prejudicial. The appellate court affirmed, finding any error harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
The court held that even if the trial court erred in admitting the investigator's characterization of the bar, any such error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including the confidential informant's testimony, the recorded and taped transaction, and the absence of defense testimony.
[1] Testimony characterizing a location as a place where drug activity occurs may be unduly prejudicial if it suggests that anyone present is involved in illicit trade.
[2] A brief reference to the reputation of a crime scene as a place where drug activity occurs, made solely for background information, may not constitute reversible error.
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 intelligence“Drug activity goes on there”
The investigator's statement about the Squeeze Inn that appellant challenged as unduly prejudicial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConner was involved in undercover drug transactions at a bar called the Squeeze Inn. An investigator testified that "drug activity goes on there" when…
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 Overwhelming Evidence Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
Pursuant to a jury trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced on three counts of sale or delivery of cocaine. Appellant asserts that the trial court reversibly erred by overruling defense counsel’s objection to Investigator Daniels’ testimony during the state’s case in chief wherein Daniels characterized the bar where the drug transactions occurred, “The Squeeze Inn,” as a place where drug activity goes on. We affirm.
The investigator testified that “Drug activity goes on there” in response to the prosecutor’s inquiry as to why he was familiar with the Squeeze Inn. This brief reference was by way of background information explaining why the Sheriff’s Office had selected that locale for the undercover drug transaction in which the appellant became involved. The appellant relying upon Gillion v. State, 573 So. 2d 810 (Fla.1991), Cabral v. State, 550 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989), Black v. State, 545 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), and Hutchinson v. State, 580 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), claims that Daniels’ testimony was unduly prejudicial because it gave the impression that anyone at the Squeeze Inn was there to engage in an illicit drug trade.
Even if the trial court’s ruling on the defendant’s objection was error under the above line of cases, we hold that such error was harmless. This was the only reference during the trial to the reputation of the locale of the crime. The prosecution made no mention thereof in his opening statement or closing argument. Moreover, the evidence of guilt in this case was overwhelming. The purchasing confidential informant testified and identified the defendant with whom the C.I. was acquainted. The transaction was recorded via a transmitting device concealed on the C.I.’s person. The conversation was monitored and taped during the transaction and the tape was placed in evidence and played for the jury. The defense presented no testimony or evidence.
We conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that Officer Daniels’ above referred characterization of the locale of the offense contributed to the appellant’s conviction. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). We therefore affirm on this issue.
We have examined the other two issues raised by the appellant, find them merit-less, and affirm without discussion.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, J. and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorsey v. State, 639 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…was not admissible to explain why police were in the area. See Lowder; Hutchinson. Thus, the remaining question is whether the error in admitting the testimony was harmless. The state urges that the error was harmless, relying upon Conner v. State, 582 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), in which the court determined that a single reference to the locale of the crime was harmless where the purchasing confidential informant testified and identified the defendant with whom he was previously acquainted and the tape…
-
Carolene Watson v. State, 672 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…impugn the area’s reputation. Id. at 811. The court found that the officer’s observations merely aided the jury in placing the testimony in context by clarifying “why this area was selected for this police operation.” Id.; see also Conner v. State, 582 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (comment about area in which arrest occurred did not compromise integrity of trial since it amounted to background information explaining why officers had selected particular area for undercover drug transaction). Accordingly, we…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Gillion v. State, 573 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1991)
- Fidel Cabral v. State, 550 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Hutchinson v. State, 580 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Carlton Black v. State, 545 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)