LEE GREENE, JR., 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.
The court held that the admission of testimony regarding threats made to a witness by someone other than the defendant was highly prejudicial and warranted reversal.
The defendant was convicted of selling cocaine. During the trial, an informer testified that she had received threats from individuals other than law …
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 Probative Value Vs. Prejudicial Effect cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
Green was convicted of the sale of cocaine. The only issue on appeal which we find to have merit is that the informer participating in the sting operation was permitted to testify that someone other than the State had threatened her. Specifically the witness was asked:
STATE: Ms. McCurley, have-you received threats specifically regarding this case?
McCURLEY: Yes, I have.
STATE: And have they come from people other than law enforcement officers?
.MeCURLEY: Yes.
The facts indicate that shortly before her testimony, the witness was questioned by defense counsel concerning identification of the defendant. During that questioning, counsel made statements which could be construed as threatening and the witness found them to be threatening. The State moved for sanctions against defense counsel which the trial court denied.
We find the questions and answers relating to the threat to be highly prejudicial and reverse. First, there is no indication that the defendant knew about or approved the “threat.” Second, the witness did not change her testimony in any way so that her credibility was not affected by testimony concerning the threat. Third, even if the testimony was admissible, the prejudice outweighs the probative value.
REVERSED.
SHARP, W., J., and LAMBERT, B., Associate Judge, concur.