BEN LAMONT DENSON, 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.
Ben Lamont Denson appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to sell and sale of cocaine, arguing the trial court erred by limiting cross-examination of state witnesses regarding officer and secure location details during a controlled buy. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding that while the limitation was error, it was harmless because undisputed evidence showed the officers did not witness the controlled buy anyway.
While the trial court erred in limiting cross-examination on these topics, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because undisputed evidence established that none of the four officers involved witnessed the controlled buy from their location, making such cross-examination evidence unable to strengthen the defendant's defense.
[1] A defendant has the right to cross-examine state witnesses regarding the location of officers and confidential sources during a controlled buy.
[2] An error in limiting cross-examination regarding the location of officers and confidential sources during a controlled buy may be harmless error.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 harmless error test places the burden on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, in other words, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict”
Establishes the harmless error standard applied to the trial court's evidentiary ruling
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDenson was convicted of cocaine possession with intent to sell and cocaine sale or delivery. The case involved a controlled buy operation with four of…
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 Cross-Examination Scope cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Ben Lamont Denson, appeals his convictions and sentences for possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver and sale or delivery of cocaine. He argues that the trial court erred in limiting his attorney’s cross-examination of the State’s witnesses regarding the location of the officers during the controlled buy at issue and the secure location used by the officers and the confidential source both before and after the buy. The State acknowledges that Appellant should have been permitted to cross-examine the witnesses as to this information. See A.E. v. State, 599 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Johnson v. State, 595 So.2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), disapproved on other grounds, Heuss v. State, 687 So.2d 823 (Fla.1996); see also Rainner v. State, 801 So.2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Judd v. State, 781 So.2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
The State argues, however, that any error in this case was harmless. See Jenkins v. State, 107 So.3d 555, 557 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (noting that the harmless error test places the burden on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, in other words, that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict). We agree. Unlike the situations in the cited cases where the defense was prohibited from cross-examining the witnesses about the locations from where they observed the alleged incidents or transactions, the undisputed evidence in this case established that none of the four officers involved in the operation witnessed the controlled buy from their location. As such, the State is *400correct that evidence of the secure location and the officers’ location during the controlled buy would not have strengthened Appellant’s defense that the buy was not as controlled as the officers portrayed it to be.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
LEWIS, C.J., WOLF and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heuss v. State, 687 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1996)
- Johnson v. State, 595 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Judd v. State, 781 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- A.E. v. State, 599 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Jenkins v. State, 107 So. 3d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Rainner v. State, 801 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)