CHARLES GRIFFIN, 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 testimony regarding prior drug dealing advice was inadmissible 'Williams Rule' evidence and not harmless error.
Appellant was convicted of possession of heroin after a police officer found heroin in his shirt pocket following an informant's tip. The officer also…
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 Propensity Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of possession of heroin. His sole point on appeal concerns the admission of certain testimony which could be categorized as “Williams Rule” evidence.
A police officer testified that he received information from a confidential informant that appellant was in a certain poolroom and that he had heroin in his possession. The officer went to the poolroom and placed appellant under arrest. He reached into appellant’s shirt pocket and found a cigarette package containing six packets of heroin.
On direct examination the prosecutor asked if the officer had had a conversation with appellant several days before, to which appellant objected. After a side bar conference the court overruled the objection and the officer testified he had talked to appellant several days before the arrest and he “advised [appellant] to quit selling dope.” By dope he said he meant heroin.
Our examination of the testimony persuades us that said testimony was relevant only to prove propensity. That being the case it was inadmissible. Roche v. State (Fla.App.2d 1976) 326 So. 2d 448; Duncan v. State (Fla.App.2nd 1974) 291 So. 2d 241.
The state contends that even if it was error to admit the officer’s offending testimony it was harmless error. Under the circumstances of this case that contention is unacceptable.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed from is reversed and this case is remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED.
MAGER and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ira G. Duncan v. State, 291 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Roche v. State, 326 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)