RICARDO DALEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2000-05-10
No. 4D99-2264
KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
760 So. 2d 217 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2000) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that testimony from an undercover officer regarding the general practices of drug sellers is inadmissible and prejudicial.


Facts & Procedural History

During a drug sale prosecution, defense counsel elicited that the defendant possessed no drugs or marked money upon arrest. The state then elicited te…

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.


Opinion of the Court
HAZOURI, J.

HAZOURI, J.

Ricardo Daley appeals from his conviction and sentence . for sale or delivery of cocaine near a school, arguing that the court erred in admitting an undercover officer’s testimony that it is not unusual to not find marked money, cocaine or drugs on a drug seller after the sale and upon apprehension. We reverse.

The factual circumstances of the instant case are almost identical to those in our ruling in Shelton v. State, 654 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). As in Shelton, a drug transaction took place between an undercover police officer and Daley. In the cross-examination of the undercover police officer, defense counsel elicited that when Daley was arrested he did not possess any crack cocaine, other drugs, or money which would indicate that a sale had taken place. Over objection by defense counsel, the state was permitted in re-direct examination of the police officer to elicit testimony that in the twelve years he had worked in the narcotics unit it was not unusual, in fact it was a regular occurrence, that upon apprehension the seller would not have any cocaine, drugs or money in his possession.

In Shelton, this court found this testimony to be inadmissible and highly prejudicial. We cited with approval Lowder v. State, 589 So. 2d 933, 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), in which the third district court of appeal stated:

[Ejvery defendant has the right to bé tried based on the evidence against him, not on the characteristics or conduct of certain classes of criminals in general. Florida courts have frequently criticized the use of testimony from police officers regarding their experience with other criminals.as substantive proof of a particular defendant’s guilt or innocence.

For the above stated reasons we hold the police officer’s testimony was highly prejudicial and inadmissible. We, there fore, reverse the conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial.

KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Petion v. State, 4 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
    …cs or conduct of certain classes of criminals in general. See Armalin v. State, 884 So. 2d 458, 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 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)…
  • White v. State, 971 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
    …uyer to a second individual for consummation of the drug sale,” Hamilton v. State, 734 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); —“not unusual to not find marked money, cocaine or drugs on a drug seller after the sale and upon apprehension,” Daley v. State, 760 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); —common for people arrested in a drug case to try to discard, hide, or conceal cocaine by throwing it away or eating it, Lawrence v. State, 766 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); —“not unusual at all” for suspect to discard money…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw