Scott v. State, 87-2112
| Decision Date | 17 October 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2112,87-2112 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2451 Calvin SCOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Michel Ociacovski Weisz, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and GERSTEN, JJ.
Calvin Scott was arrested and charged with possession of heroin and conspiracy to traffic in heroin. A jury trial was held where Scott raised an entrapment defense. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of lesser included offenses--attempted trafficking and conspiracy. On appeal, Scott contends that the trial court deprived him of his sixth amendment right to full and adequate cross-examination, thus impairing his ability to present an entrapment defense.
At trial the State's chief witness, Officer Paez, testified that a confidential informant voluntarily offered to provide police with information about narcotics dealers in the Liberty City area. Paez asked the informant to introduce him to Scott. When questioned by the prosecutor as to his reasons for wanting the introduction, Paez replied that he had been advised that Mr. Scott was involved in high-level drug trafficking in Liberty City. Defense counsel did not object or move to strike the response.
On cross-examination, in an attempt to elicit from the officer his information source concerning the defendant's alleged high-level involvement in the drug trade, defense counsel questioned Paez about the contents of intelligence files in the Florida Department of Law Enforcement computer bank. He asked, "Do you know if Calvin Scott was on the computer?" The prosecutor's objection on grounds of hearsay and relevance were sustained by the court as "classic hearsay." Defense counsel then abandoned the line of questioning regarding the officer's information source.
Cross-examination of Paez was interrupted again when the court sustained the State's objection to a question whether the informant had been convicted of a crime.
For the following reasons no reversible error is demonstrated. First, by rephrasing the question, the officer's source of information could have been pursued. The court's ruling sustaining the objection to the contents of a computer printout was not a ruling that the information sought was irrelevant--only that the information sought would have been inadmissible hearsay if it came in through the officer's testimony. A records custodian could have been called to testify as to computerized law enforcement records, Pickrell v. State, 301 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 314 So.2d 585 (Fla.1975), or a computer printout could have been admitted after the establishment of a proper predicate. Cofield v. State, 474 So.2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. State, 91-664
...with the sentence on the conspiracy count. The convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal by this court in Scott v. State, 552 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Subsequent to the affirmance on direct appeal, the appellant filed a motion to vacate pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of......