MICHAEL DECCA, A/K/A MIKE DECCA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 appellate court affirmed a conviction for unlawful possession and sale of marijuana, rejecting the appellant's arguments that his conviction was based solely on uncorroborated testimony and that the State should have revealed the identity of a confidential informant.
The court held that the conviction was not reversible error based on uncorroborated testimony, citing precedent. The court also rejected the argument that the State should have been required to reveal the informant's identity.
“it is obvious that the uncorroborated testimony of one man, in effect, was- [*93] the basis of the conviction herein.”
Appellant's argument regarding the sufficiency of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted in a non-jury trial for unlawful possession and sale of marijuana. The State presented one witness, and the defendant test…
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 Confidential Informant Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks review of a conviction entered by the trial court in a non-jury trial, upon the charge of unlawful possession and sale of marijuana.
The State produced one witness and the defendant took the stand in his own behalf and offered an alibi. Subsequently, the trial court found him guilty and this appeal ensued.
In his brief, the appellant says:' “ * * * it is obvious that the uncorroborated testimony of one man, in effect, was-*93the basis of the conviction herein.” In light of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida, in State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So.2d 893, and in the opinion of this court, in Wright v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 264, this is no reason to find reversible error. The appellant also urges that the State should have been required to reveal the name of the confidential informant who led the State’s witness to the time and place where the purchase of marijuana was completed. We reject this contention. The defendant’s alibi could have been established by other witnesses.
Therefore, the conviction, adjudication, and sentence, here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Neal Henry Pearson v. State, 221 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…e 3rd District Court, in Pearson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 425, said: “In the circumstances presented, the trial court properly refused the motion to have the identity of the confidential informer revealed.” Decca v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 186 So. 2d 92, was a case strangely parallel to the case here both in point of fact and in the contentions of the respective appellants. The charge there was sale of marijuana. The State relied upon one witness. The defendant denied the charge and offered an alib…
-
Drayton v. State, 372 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…es were only peripheral and, because of their nature, could not have affected the jury’s decision. Fourth, even though the defense was an alibi and the informant could support or destroy it, this fact does not require disclosure. See Decca v. State, 186 So. 2d 92 (Fla.3d DCA 1966). Fifth, the evidence which convicted appellant was independent of any evidence relating to the informant and was corroborated by the physical evidence and the testimony of the surveillance police officers. Sixth, on the date of bot…
-
Laughlin v. State, 323 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…guilty by a jury of possession of more than 5 grams of marijuana. The appellants urge error, going to the sufficiency of the evidence, which we find not to be well taken. State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So. 2d 893; Decca v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 92; Stewart v. State, Fla.App.1969, 221 So. 2d 155; Zicca v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So. 2d 414. The appellants also urge error in a [*692] posttrial order refusing to require a newspaper reporter to reveal the source of an alleged rumor. Initially, w…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Sebastian, 171 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1965)
- Wright v. State, 182 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)