OTTES ROGERS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Selective Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ottes Rogers appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine. We affirm.
First, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. As found by the trial court, the record supports the police officers’ testimony that the encounter with the defendant was consensual. See Jacobson v. State, 476 So. 2d 1282, 1285 (Fla.1985).
Second, the defendant’s claim of selective prosecution was not raised below, and in any event, there is no factual basis in the record to support it.
Third, defendant’s contention regarding the police dispatch tapes is rejected under authority of Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S.Ct. 333, 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988).
Finally, there was no error in the trial court’s ruling on the scope of cross-examination of one of the arresting officers. See Jones v. State, 580 So. 2d 143, 145 (Fla.1991).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reed v. State, 783 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…t of the offense.”); Ward v. State, 655 So. 2d 1290, 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (“The giving of an incomplete and inaccurate instruction on the law is fundamental error where the error relates to the elements of the criminal offense.”); Gill v. State, 586 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (holding that giving an inaccurate misleading instruction regarding a required element of sexual battery constituted fundamental error); Cole v. State, 573 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding that giving an inaccurate faulty i…
-
Palazzolo v. State, 754 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…s of procedure in this case. 2. Whether the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury that digital capital sexual battery could be established by proof of “union.” The facts of this case are similar to those in Gill v. State, 586 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Gill involved allegations that the defendant digitally penetrated a young boy’s anus. After a jury trial, the court gave the correct standard instruction for a digital penetration case. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 167.3 Ho…
-
Lakey v. State, 113 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…he victim].” This instruction improperly permitted the jury to convict Lakey of attempted sexual battery based on a finding that he attempted a digital union with the sexual organ of the victim. See Holmes, 842 So. 2d at 188; see also Gill v. State, 586 So. 2d 471, 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (holding trial court committed fundamental error in instructing jury that union with an object was an alternative to penetration by an object on the charge of sexual battery). Finding the instruction was fundamentally errone…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988)
- Jacobson v. State, 476 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1985)
- Jones v. State, 580 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1991)