JAMES FRYC, 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.
Defendant Fryc was convicted of possessing a controlled substance while imprisoned in Monroe County Jail. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to compel disclosure of a confidential informant's identity and his motion for judgment of acquittal, both of which the court rejected.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion to compel disclosure because the confidential informant's identity was not material to any defense raised at trial. Additionally, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal because sufficient evidence existed for the jury to find guilt despite defendant's denial of knowledge of the controlled substance.
“it does not appear that the name of the confidential informant was material to any defense raised by motion or at trial”
Establishes that disclosure is not required when informant identity is not material to defendant's defense
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant James Fryc was a prisoner in Monroe County Jail at the time of the alleged incident. He was charged with and found guilty of possession of a…
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 Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was found guilty of the possession of a controlled substance. At the time of the alleged incident, the defendant was a prisoner in the Monroe County Jail. Two points are argued on this appeal: (1) that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion to compel the State to provide him with the name and address of the confidential informant; and (2) that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.
The first point does not present error on this record because it does not appear that the name of the confidential informant was material to any defense raised by motion or at trial. The confidential informant was not mentioned by the State or the defense in the testimony at trial. See the principles of law discussed in State v. Hassberger, 350 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1977).
There is evidence upon which the jury could find the defendant guilty despite his denial of knowledge of the controlled substance. See Heineman v. State, 327 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Maybell Holley v. MT. Zion Terrace Apts., Inc., 382 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…63); see also Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc., 370 So. 2d 836 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Angell v. F. Avanzini Lumber Co., 363 So. 2d 571 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Sparks v. Ober, 192 So. 2d 81 (Fla.3d DCA 1966); compare Drake v. Sun Bank & Trust Co. of St. Petersburg, 377 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.2d DCA 1979), in which the court based its holding of non-liability solely upon the absence of allegations that the criminal attack was reasonably foreseeable. Furthermore, two particular features of this case make the plaintiff’s position even…
-
Agustin Fernandez v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc., 386 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…. Ober, supra (liability on the part of tavern for injury caused by drunken fellow patron).3 Concededly, an owner of a business establishment has no duty to protect his patrons from all crime, see Drake v. Sun Bank & Trust Company of St. Petersburg, 377 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979),4 but he does have a duty to protect them from those crimes which may be shown to be reasonably foreseeable and which may be shown to result in foreseeable risks. Reversed. . The defendants essentially concede that the adequacy…
-
TEN Assocs. v. McCUTCHEN, 398 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…erior Court of Los Angeles County, supra, distinguishing O’Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp., supra; see, e. g. Highland Ins. Co. v. Gilday, 398 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Relyea v. State, supra; Drake v. Sun Bank & Trust Co. of St. Petersburg, 377 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. DCA 1979). . Holley, supra, 382 So. 2d at 101. . Id. . See also note 4, supra, and cases cited.…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Hassberger, 350 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1977)
- Heineman v. State, 327 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)