Johnson v. State, 89-00032
| Decision Date | 07 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-00032,89-00032 |
| Citation | 581 So.2d 220 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly D1526 Mike JOHNSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gary R. Gossett, Jr., of McCollum & Gossett, P.A., Sebring, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Mike Johnson, Jr. (Mike) appeals from convictions of attempted trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in 400 grams or more of cocaine. Because we determine that the trial court erred in denying Mike's motion for judgment of acquittal, we limit our discussion to that point on appeal.
Mike was arrested together with his brother, Joe Johnson (Joe), and M.L. Brumfield in a reverse sting operation conducted by the Polk County Sheriff's Department. In addition to the crime lab technician, the prosecution's case consisted of the testimony of five witnesses.
Leroy Ellis, a paid informant, testified that he offered to arrange a sale of cocaine to Joe. He telephoned his contact in the sheriff's department, who in turn arranged to have undercover officers and the cocaine in a designated motel room in Bartow. Ellis then drove with Joe from Arcadia to Bartow and introduced him to the purported drug sellers. He observed Joe leave the motel room, go to a pickup truck (not the vehicle they had arrived in) in the parking lot, and return, accompanied by Brumfield, with a paper bag containing money. Ellis had no knowledge of Mike.
Steve Hammerburg, an undercover officer, testified that he had possession of one and one-half kilograms of cocaine in his car in the motel parking lot. Upon a prearranged signal, he delivered the cocaine to the designated motel room. Hammerburg had no knowledge of Mike.
Lieutenant James Madden testified that he was in charge of the operation and was present in the motel room. He negotiated the sale with Joe, accepted $16,000 from Joe, and delivered the cocaine to him. As Joe left the room, other officers, who did not testify, arrested Joe and Brumfield. The entire transaction was tape recorded and the tape was played to the jury. There is no reference to Mike on the tape and Madden had no knowledge of him. Madden further testified that an additional $28,260 in cash was recovered from the pickup truck in the parking lot.
Richard Land, special agent, testified that his assignment was to remain in his car in the parking lot and "take down" (arrest) anyone in the parking lot when the primary arrests occurred. He observed Mike get out of the pickup truck and arrested him. Land had not previously observed Mike and had no other knowledge of him.
Sergeant Gary Hester testified that he was Ellis' contact. He arranged Madden's meeting with Joe and Ellis and headed the arrest team of the operation. He had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castillo v. State
...insufficient to establish the existence of a criminal conspiracy. Honchell v. State, 257 So.2d 889, 891 (Fla.1971); Johnson v. State, 581 So.2d 220, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We conclude that the evidence here is insufficient to support the conspiracy conviction and therefore reverse that Def......
-
Bravo v. State
...However, this court understands that the term "takedown" — when used in this context — denotes an arrest. See Johnson v. State, 581 So.2d 220, 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). In sports, the term "takedown" refers to "a move or maneuver in wrestling or the martial arts in which a standing opponent i......
-
Banks v. State
...of a drug transaction is insufficient, in and of itself, to establish participation in the transaction. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 581 So.2d 220, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). As noted above, the information contained within the objectionable statements was prejudicial and directly implicated B......
-
Ratliff v. State
...the drug, and intent to sell, we conclude the trial judge abused his discretion in revoking appellant's probation. Cf. Johnson v. State, 581 So.2d 220 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (finding mere presence of defendant at scene of drug transaction insufficient to establish requisite knowledge and intent......