RALPH HERNANDEZ, 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 the detective's testimony, based on anecdotal experience and potentially referencing past crimes, should not have been admitted into evidence.
[1] Testimony concerning past crimes that do not involve the defendant cannot be introduced to demonstrate that the defendant committed the crimes at issue in the present cas…
[2] A detective's testimony based on anecdotal experience, suggesting that jewelry was taken in trade for narcotics, is inadmissible as it places prejudicial and misleading i…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell near a public school. During a search of his home, officers found cocaine, cash, …
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 Prejudicial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Ralph Hernandez, appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1,000 feet 0f a public school. We reverse and remand-
Appellant was arrested by officers executing a search warrant at appellant’s home. The officers discovered rock cocaine and a large amount of cash in appellant’s pockets.
The search also produced weapons, jewelry and additional amounts of cash. At trial the weapons and jewelry were admitted into evidence. A police detective then testified:
Q: Detective, based on your experience as a narcotics investigator, how do you— how do you believe that that jewelry ended up in the house? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. A: I believe that — Due to the fact that none of the jewelry coincide with any initials or names from the defendant or any other person that resides inside this house, I believe it was taken in trade for narcotics. * * * * * * Q: Detective Kent, in your experience as a narcotics investigator have you found weapons like this in homes that you’ve served search warrants? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection, irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. A: I approximate on probably fifty to sixty percent of houses we execute warrants on, weapons are seized. Q: Why are weapons like this kept in homes? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. He can’t answer that. THE COURT: Overruled. If he knows. Q: Do you know, Detective? A: There are several reasons, two of which — Number one, sometimes they are used to do protection. Number two, is they’re also taken in trade for narcotics, as is jewelry, TV’s, whatever else. Testimony concerning past crimes that do not involve this defendant cannot be introduced to demonstrate that this defendant committed the crimes at issue in the present case. Nowitzke v. State, 572 So. 2d 1346 (Fla.1990).
We find that the detective’s testimony based on his anecdotal experience should not have been admitted, as it placed prejudicial and misleading inferences before the jury. See Nowitzke v. State, 572 So. 2d at 1356. Accordingly we reverse and remand.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ruth v. State, 610 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ion. It was purely speculation and, as such, was inadmissible. An expert witness’ opinion must be based on facts or inferences supported by the evidence. Arkin Construction Co. v. Simpkins, 99 So. 2d 557, 561 (Fla.1957). See also Hernandez v. State, 595 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Cappabianca’s statement here had no factual basis of support. Where, but for the admission of clearly erroneous testimonial evidence that invades the province of the jury, there is not a scintilla of evidence to support a convic…
-
Nubiola v. State, 655 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…you to disregard what the officer said in that answer— We recognize that such a question and answer put to a jury may prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial, as in Now-itzke v. State, 572 So. 2d 1346,1355 (Fla.1990) and Hernandez v. State, 595 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert, denied, 605 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 1992). In those cases, however, there was actual evidence of inculpatory action that impugned the defendant’s innocence under the circumstances. In the present case, the offending testimony was only…
Authorities Cited
- Nowitzke v. State, 572 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 1990)