RODNEY DUNNING, 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.
Rodney Dunning appeals his cocaine sales and possession conviction, arguing the trial court erred in admitting Detective Connell's testimony about general drug dealer customs. The appellate court agrees the testimony was inadmissible but affirms the conviction, finding the error harmless given the overwhelming evidence of Dunning's guilt.
The trial court erred in permitting Detective Connell to testify about general drug dealer customs, but the error was harmless and does not warrant reversal because the overwhelming evidence of guilt—including the detective's direct observation of the transaction, the marked bill found on Dunning's person, and the laboratory confirmation that the items were cocaine—establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] Testimony regarding the general customs of drug dealers is inadmissible over objection.
[2] The erroneous admission of testimony concerning the general customs of drug dealers constitutes harmless error when the evidence of guilt is otherwise overwhelming.
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 intelligence“The trial court should not have permitted Detective Connell to testify concerning general customs of drug dealers.”
Establishes the core error: the testimony was inadmissible under prior Fourth District precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 9, 1995, during a drug buy/bust operation, Detective Connell observed Dunning signaling from a canal barrier. After approaching the detect…
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
DELL, Judge.
Rodney Dunning appeals his conviction for the sale and possession of cocaine. He contends the trial court erred in allowing a detective to testify to the general customs used by drug dealers in drug transactions. We agree that the trial court erred, but we hold that the admission of the testimony constituted harmless error and affirm the conviction.
On November 9, 1995, the St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office conducted a drug buy/bust operation. Between 1:00 p.m. and 1:40 p.m., Detective Connell observed appellant sitting on a metal canal barrier, nodding his head in an attempt to get her attention. After appellant approached the detective’s car, she requested three cocaine rocks for $20.00. Appellant ran to a pile of dirt next to where he sat, dug something out of the ground, and came back with what the state crime laboratory determined to be three cocaine rocks. The detective gave appellant a marked $20.00 bill. Later, detectives found the marked bill on appellant’s person.
Appellant testified that Detective Connell approached him twice. He claimed that on her second approach, he gave her three pebbles off the ground in exchange for $20.00. He further testified that he gave her the pebbles to keep her from aggravating him. Over defense objection, Detective Connell testified that when dealers sell drugs, it is not uncommon to keep the drugs off their persons.
The trial court should not have permitted Detective Connell to testify concerning general customs of drug dealers. See Thomas v. State, 673 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Shelton v. State, 654 So. 2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). However, appellant’s contention that this was reversible error is without merit. Detective Con-nell witnessed and testified to appellant’s participation in the transaction. Appellant admitted to the exchange with the detective and carried the marked $20.00 bill. His only defense was that he gave the detective “pebbles,” not cocaine. The crime laboratory, however, determined these pebbles were cocaine. Furthermore, appellant’s possession of the so-called pebbles was not an issue in this ease.
We hold that the record shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict. We affirm on the authority of State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER, C.J., concurs.
STEVENSON, J., concurs specially with opinion.
STEVENSON, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the majority’s finding that the admission of Detective Connell’s singular comment opining that it is standard operating procedure for drug dealers not to keep the drugs on their person was harmless error. Even in drug-infested South Florida, appellee’s explanation for his possession of the drugs — that he randomly scooped three pebbles from the ground, which pebbles happened to be cocaine, which happened to be the very drug that the undercover agent was seeking — is so outlandish and improbable that it most certainly would have been rejected by this or any other jury, with or without Detective Connell's improper comment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baskin v. State, 732 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…case, and had no bearing on the defense of confused identity. Under both the rule pronounced in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), and pursuant to section 924.051(7), Florida Statutes, the error was harmless. See also Dunning v. State, 695 So. 2d 473, 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). AFFIRMED. BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.…
-
Lawrence v. State, 766 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…this court has held that testimony of generalized common practices among drug dealers is not admissible as proof of guilt. See White v. State, 730 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Moore v. State, 711 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Dunning v. State, 695 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Dean v. State, 690 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Shelton v. State, 654 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In Dean, Judge (now Justice) Pariente observed that we have “repeatedly condemned testimony about behavior patterns of cr…
-
Petion v. State, 4 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…2004); Batten v. State, 770 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Lawrence v. State, 766 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Daley v. State, 760 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Moore v. State, 711 So. 2d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Dunning v. State, 695 So. 2d 473, 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Wheeler v. State, 690 So. 2d 1369, 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Dean v. State, 690 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Osario v. State, 526 So. 2d 157, 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). We find, however, that any error in admitting this te…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Shelton v. State, 654 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Carrington Thomas v. State, 673 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)