Huff v. State
| Decision Date | 03 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1479,88-1479 |
| Citation | 537 So.2d 1130,14 Fla. L. Weekly 362 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 362 James HUFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Andrea Steffen, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lauren Hafner Sewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Defendant appeals from his conviction for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. We affirm.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the hearsay testimony of an alleged co-conspirator because there was no evidence independent of that testimony to establish defendant's participation in the alleged conspiracy. We agree that such independent evidence is necessary to justify the admission into evidence of an alleged co-conspirator's hearsay statements. Verni v. State, 536 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); State v. Edwards, 536 So.2d 288 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); State v. Morales, 460 So.2d 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Contra Romani v. State, 528 So.2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
Schueren v. State, 370 So.2d 83, 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), overruled sub nom. on other grounds, Parker v. State, 406 So.2d 1089 (Fla.1981), can be cited in support of defendant's argument that since that independent evidence shows that he was only a go-between arranging a cocaine purchase by undercover police officers from third party suppliers, he could not have been properly convicted of being a member of a conspiracy in that regard. However, we conclude that Schueren is inapposite. While in this case there was evidence indicating that defendant was a go-between, there was other evidence from which the jury could have concluded that defendant was to be a supplier. See Orantes v. State, 452 So.2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 461 So.2d 115 (Fla.1984); Brown v. State, 468 So.2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 476 So.2d 672 (Fla.1985). It is not within our province to reweigh the evidence. See Tsavaris v. NCNB National Bank, 497 So.2d 1338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
We find no merit in defendant's additional contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State, 89-00788
...We will not reweigh evidence which is sufficient to justify the admissibility of co-conspirators' hearsay testimony. Huff v. State, 537 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). That no James * hearing was conducted before the hearsay testimony was admitted was not reversible error. Garcia v. State, 4......
-
Hurtado v. State, 88-02501
...PER CURIAM. We affirm defendant's convictions for trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. See Huff v. State, 537 So.2d 1130 (Fla.2d DCA 1989); McElrath v. State, 516 So.2d 276 (Fla.2d DCA This case provides a propitious occasion to reiterate the following statement made......