KELLY MOSELY, 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 evidence of money found in a defendant's pocket is irrelevant and prejudicial in a cocaine possession case.
Appellant was arrested for possession of cocaine after dropping rocks that tested positive for the drug. The arresting officer found $200 in appellant…
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 Criminal Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was charged with and convicted of possession of cocaine. He argues that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence the fact that he had $200 in his pocket when he was arrested. We reverse.
A detective testified that he observed two people, one flagging down cars in a commercial area. As the officer approached, they started to walk away and appellant dropped cocaine rocks. When the officer picked the rocks up, appellant told him they were fake; however, they tested positive for cocaine. Appellant also had $200 in his pocket.
Over appellant’s objection, the trial court allowed the officer to testify that appellant had $200 in his pocket when he was arrested. Appellant argues that, because he was charged only with possession, the evidence of money found in his pocket was irrelevant and prejudicial. Appellant’s argument is supported by the factually similar cases of Buitrago v. State, 950 So.2d 531, 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), and Ferguson v. State, 697 So.2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), in which we held that, in possession cases, evidence of money found on the defendant was irrelevant and prejudicial.
The state relies on Holmes v. State, 710 So.2d 651, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), but in Holmes the defendant was charged with trafficking, which made the cash relevant. Accordingly, as we did in Buitrago and Ferguson, we reverse for a new trial.
FARMER and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brunson v. State, 31 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…of $1000 cash at the time of his arrest does tend to prove appellant had or was intending to engage in distribution or sale of the large amounts of cocaine in his possession and we affirm the trial court’s holding on the matter. See Mosely v. State, 1 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (noting cash found on defendant was irrelevant in a simple possession case because appellant was not charged with trafficking). Finally, while reversal renders appellant’s written sentence and judgment invalid, we write to addre…
Authorities Cited
- Ferguson v. State, 697 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Randell Holmes v. State, 710 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Buitrago v. State, 950 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)