ALEXANDER BERNARD HARRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conspiracy To Traffic In Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The sole claim asserted on this appeal from a conviction for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine is that the trial court improperly precluded defense counsel from commenting in final argument on the state’s failure to produce a confidential informant as its witness at the trial. To justify the inference against the prosecution sought to be drawn below, it is necessary to show that the uncalled ‘“witness is peculiarly within the party’s power to produce and the testimony of the witness would elucidate the transaction.’ ” Haliburton v. State, 561 So. 2d 248, 250 (Fla.1990) (quoting Martinez v. State, 478 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1986)), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2910, 115 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1991). While we do not agree with the state that the witness was not within its power to produce, we find that the c.i. had only a minimal relationship with the case at all and none whatsoever with the defendant himself. Hence, his testimony would not have “elucidate[d] the transaction” in question at the trial. For this reason, the ruling complained of was not erroneous.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Osorio v. State, 186 So. 3d 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…State’s failure to call the [confidential informant] as a witness”). Because the co-worker directly connected law enforcement to Osorio and facilitated the drug buy, his testimony would have served to elucidate the transaction. See Harris v, State, 636 So. 2d 137, 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (affirming trial court’s decision to prohibit comment on State’s failure to call confidential informant where, despite the fact that informant was within the State’s “power to produce,” their “testimony would not have ‘elucid…
-
Reyes Herrera Molina v. State, 71 So. 3d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…nd Molina told Witt to get his number from the CL Because the Cl was the person who connected Detective Witt to Molina and because the Cl was present during the drug buy, the Cl’s testimony would have elucidated the transaction. Cf. Harris v. State, 636 So. 2d 137, 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (disagreeing -with the state that the Cl was not within the state’s power to produce but concluding that the Cl’s testimony would not have elucidated the transaction because the “[Cl] had only a minimal relationship with the…
-
Mojena v. State, 644 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Harris v. State, 636 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); State v. Ostlund, 416 N.W. 2d 755, 762 (Minn.Ct.App.1987).…
Authorities Cited
- Haliburton v. State, 561 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1990)
- Martinez v. State, 478 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)