Harris v. State, 4D00-4197.
| Decision Date | 19 December 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D00-4197.,4D00-4197. |
| Parties | David HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin W. Maserang, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David M. Schultz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION
We deny the motion for rehearing but grant with regard to clarification. We withdraw our previously issued opinion and substitute the following in its place.
The defendant appeals his sentence for battery on a law enforcement officer. We affirm.
Police arrested the defendant during surveillance of an area for narcotics activity. The defendant was driving through the area when he pulled over to pick up a three-inch pill bottle from the street. An officer stopped his car, and a search of the car revealed a controlled substance. During the stop, the defendant struck the officer.
The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the contraband, and a jury convicted the defendant of possession of cocaine, battery on a law enforcement officer, and possession of marijuana. This Court reversed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding that merely picking up a bottle from the street did not give rise to the reasonable suspicion or probable cause necessary for search and seizure. Harris v. State, 761 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We issued a mandate commanding the lower court to hold proceedings consistent with that opinion.
On remand, the trial court dismissed the two counts of possession. However, it adjudicated him guilty of battery on a law enforcement officer. The defendant now challenges his conviction contending that the State could only prove simple battery without testimony regarding the illegal stop. He argues that our previous ruling precludes such testimony.
Otherwise inadmissible evidence that is inextricably intertwined with admissible evidence may be allowed under section 90.402, Florida Statutes (1993). See Coolen v. State, 696 So.2d 738 (Fla.1997)
().
In this case, testimony regarding the unlawful stop is inextricably intertwined with the evidence relevant to the battery on a law enforcement officer because some information about the stop is needed for context. At minimum some explanation of the officer's presence is necessary. Even though such evidence would be inadmissible for other purposes, as we previously ruled, it is admissible here pursuant to section 90.402, Florida Statutes (1993).
However, not all the evidence presented at the defendant's trial was relevant to the remaining charge of battery on a law enforcement officer. The original trial contained extensive testimony regarding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ford v. State
-
Perry v. State, 4D01-2049.
...to an arrest situation. Rather, courts have extended it to apply to illegal stops, searches, and detentions. See Harris v. State, 801 So.2d 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(holding that an illegal stop does not automatically preclude a conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer); Dominique ......
-
Watson v. State
...jurisdiction). On direct appeal, the State relied on Dominique v. State, 590 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), and Harris v. State, 801 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), decisions applying section 776.051(1) and holding that the illegality of a detention was not a defense to charges of batt......
-
Harris v. State, SC02-219.
...Assistant Attorneys General, West Palm Beach, FL, for Respondent. BELL, J. We initially accepted jurisdiction to review Harris v. State, 801 So.2d 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), a decision alleged to be in express and direct conflict with Taylor v. State, 740 So.2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). See art......