LARRY LAWRENCE, 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.
Larry Lawrence was convicted of purchasing cocaine based on testimony from undercover officers, but the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court improperly admitted evidence about generalized patterns of drug dealer behavior unrelated to Lawrence's specific transaction.
The court held that such generalized testimony about criminal behavior patterns is inadmissible as substantive proof of a defendant's guilt because every defendant has the right to be tried based on evidence against him, not on the characteristics or conduct of certain classes of criminals in general.
[1] Testimony concerning typical characteristics of drug transactions unrelated to the specific case at hand is inadmissible.
[2] Generalized common practices among drug dealers are not admissible as proof of a defendant's guilt.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“every defendant has the right to be tried based on the evidence against him, not on the characteristics or conduct of certain classes of criminals in general”
Establishes the fundamental principle that testimony about generalized criminal behavior patterns is inadmissible as it violates the defendant's right to individualized trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo undercover police officers sold Lawrence a cocaine rock. Lawrence was arrested shortly after the sale, but the cocaine was not recovered. One offi…
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 Prior Bad Acts Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
Larry Lawrence appeals his conviction of purchasing cocaine in violation of section 893.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1999). We reverse because the trial court erroneously admitted testimony concerning typical characteristics of drug transactions unrelated to the one in this case.
The state’s case was that two undercover police officers sold Lawrence a cocaine rock. Lawrence was arrested shortly after the sale, but the rock was not recovered.
Over objection, the state asked one of the undercover officers whether it was “unusual for the cocaine not to be recovered in these types of situations?” The officer responded, “Sometimes it is, yes.” Next, the prosecutor asked whether it was “common for people to try and discard or hide or conceal the cocaine?” After a defense objection, the trial court told the prosecutor to “lay a predicate.” The prosecutor then established that the officer had been involved with over one hundred drug transactions and asked, “And when people are arrested for cocaine, or drugs, or illegal substances on the street, do they often discard or dispose of the items?” The defense objected and the trial judge told the prosecutor to “lay some ground work into” the officer’s experience. The prosecutor asked, “In your experience what is common when these type of situations occur?” The officer responded, “Sometimes they try to throw it away, throw it over the fence, eat it.”1
This testimony concerning characteristic patterns in a type of criminal activity was inadmissible. In a number of cases, 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 criminals, including drug dealers, based upon an officer’s observations in other cases.” 690 So. 2d at 722 (citations omitted). As Dean explained:
General criminal behavior testimony is not allowed as substantive proof of a defendant’s guilt because “every defendant has the right to be tried based on the evidence against him, not on the characteristics or conduct of certain classes of criminals in general.” Lowder v. State, 589 So. 2d 933, 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), dismissed, 598 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1992). In Lowder, the court found reversible error where the detective was allowed to testify that “[pjeople who sell narcotics usually have cash in their pocket.” Id. Id. at 723.
Shelton is most similar to this case. There, an undercover officer purchased a cocaine rock from the defendant for $20.00. However, neither a twenty dollar bill nor drugs were found on the defendant after his arrest. The officer testified at trial, in response to questions from the prosecutor, that the police “don’t always recover the money” and “rarely” recover the drugs in undercover arrests. 654 So. 2d at 1296. This court held that such testimony was “inadmissible and highly prejudicial.” Id.
Having reviewed the transcript of the trial, we do not find that “there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.” Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537, 541 (Fla.1999) (quoting State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986)). Lawrence testified that the officers approached him and asked if he needed anything; he told them 'no. Lawrence claimed that when one officer displayed something in a package, Lawrence said he did not need it and continued on his way. He was then arrested.
The conviction is reversed and remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
As to the other points on appeal, concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and the special jury instruction, we find no error. The scrivener’s error in the probation order is rendered moot by the reversal.
STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ„ concur. . Although the officer giving ihe testimony did not see Lawrence swallow the cocaine, his partner thought that Lawrence "threw the cocaine into his mouth” when he saw the police coming to arrest him.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nyka O'Connor v. State, 835 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…to manufacture relevance with the testimony that people who commit drug armed robberies often wear bullet proof vests. This anecdotal testimony “concerning characteristic patterns in a type of criminal activity was inadmissible.” Lawrence v. State, 766 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); see also Dean v. State, 690 So. 2d 720, 723-24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Shelton v. State, 654 So. 2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Any marginal relevance in this type of testimony was substantially outweighed by the danger of…
-
Petion v. State, 4 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…ed on evidence against him, not on the characteristics 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…
-
Tevorance Lesane v. State, 895 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ght to be tried based on the evidence against him or her, not on the characteristics or conduct of certain classes of criminals in general. See Dean v. State, 690 So. 2d 720, 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). This principle was applied in Lawrence v. State, 766 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). In that case, the testimony at issue was the officer’s testimony that it was not unusual for cocaine not to be recovered in certain situations. The prosecutor asked the officer in his experience what was common in those situatio…
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)
- Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 1999)
- Lowder v. State, 589 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Dean v. State, 690 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Shelton v. State, 654 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Dunning v. State, 695 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Moore v. State, 711 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Darion White v. State, 730 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)