ANDREYEV ROSS
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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 trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence under Florida Statute § 90.403 where the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
[1] The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and such determination will not be disturbed on appellate review absent a clear abuse of…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“To prove its case, the State is entitled to present evidence which paints an accurate picture of the events surrounding the crimes charged.”
Court citing Griffin v. State in support of admitting contextual evidence
Andreyev Ross appealed a conviction from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. The appeal concerned the admissibility of evidence at trial.…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed April 16, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0754 Lower Tribunal No. F17-1540B ________________
Andreyev Ross, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ramiro C. Areces, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, SCALES and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678, 697 (Fla. 2013) (“The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed on appellate review absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” (citation omitted)); § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2019) (“Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”) (emphasis added); see also Monestime v. State, 41 So. 3d 1110, 1112-13 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (concluding that photos of an AR15 rifle, along with “cocaine and money” were necessary to allow the jury to understand context of the charged offenses, noting: “To prove its case, the State is entitled to present evidence which paints an accurate picture of the events surrounding the crimes charged.” (quoting Griffin v. State, 639 So. 2d 966, 970 (Fla. 1994))); Dorsett v. State, 944 So. 2d 1207, 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (finding evidence explaining why detective focused his surveillance on defendant was relevant and necessary to establish the reliability of the detective’s identification of the defendant and the absence of mistake); Vail v. State, 890 So. 2d 373, 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (concluding no abuse of discretion was shown in trial court permitting testimony regarding a gun found in the van, along with contraband at issue, because it was inextricably
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Griffin v. State, 639 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1994)
- Dorsett v. State, 944 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 2013)
- Irving v. State, 627 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Vail v. State, 890 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Rollin Monestime v. State, 41 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)