STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DARRYL WALLS, 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 deposition testimony created a jury question regarding the defendant's implication in a cocaine sale, even without direct possession or verbal direction.
[1] A defendant may be implicated in a drug sale through non-verbal conduct, such as nodding and gesturing, even if they did not physically possess the drugs or verbally dire…
[2] Evidence of a defendant's non-verbal communication, like nodding and gesturing towards a house, can be sufficient to present a jury question regarding their involvement i…
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 intelligenceThe state charged the defendant with sale of cocaine. The trial court dismissed the information. The dismissal was based on the defendant not possessi…
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 Sale Of Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the information against defendant, Darryl Walls, for sale of cocaine in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1987). We agree with the state that the following deposition testimony of an undercover officer presented a jury question as to whether defendant was sufficiently implicated in a sale of cocaine to the officer even though defendant was not shown to have actually possessed the cocaine or to have verbally directed his codefendant to sell it to the officer:
A. [Detective] Told him what I needed. He [Talbert, the codefendant] looked over at Walls. Walls nodded to him like, yeah, go ahead, and Walls kind of motioned with his head towards the house, and Talbert went into the house; came back 20, 30 seconds later. Q. [Defense Counsel] How do you know this motion had any significance — relevance?
A. You could tell by the actions of Tal-bert. Talbert — It’s not uncommon on the Southside of St. Petersburg for someone who owns the cocaine to have someone else do the dealing so they don’t have to touch it just in case they’re dealing with cops.
Talbert came to the vehicle. When he asked me what I wanted, when I responded and told him what I needed, he automatically turned his head, looked at Walls; Walls gave him a nod like, yeah, go ahead and do it, and Walls did a shift towards the house like this (indicating).
If you’re asking did he direct, verbally, Corbett Talbert to go into the house, no. He directed him by nodding his head— giving him a motion twice to, number one, go ahead and do the deal, and, number two, go ahead and go inside the house.
We conclude that the foregoing testimony presented a jury question as to whether defendant could be found guilty of the crime of sale of cocaine. It is of no moment whether or not he ever had actual or constructive possession of the cocaine. See St. Clair v. State, 575 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (en banc).
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robertson v. State, 719 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…to the sale to ascertain whether he was a policeman and then directing his companion to “go ahead” and sell the marijuana to the officer furnished a founded suspicion for the stop that led to his arrest for the charged offenses. See State v. Walls, 585 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Kearse v. State, 384 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); State v. Stevens, 354 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). We further find that appellant was properly tried in “Division FS”, a criminal court section presided over by senior ju…
Authorities Cited
- ST. Clair v. State, 575 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)