Turner v. State
| Decision Date | 20 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5D18-3772 |
| Citation | 279 So.3d 340 |
| Parties | William TURNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Edward J. Weiss, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
William Turner was convicted of selling methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine with the intent to sell, and unlawfully using a two-way communication device. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in disallowing his closing argument that the lack of fingerprint evidence relating to the baggie containing the methamphetamine constituted reasonable doubt. We agree and reverse.
The events leading to Turner's charges occurred in a model shed outside of a Lowe's Home Improvement store in Sumter County. The Sumter County Sheriff's Department utilized a confidential informant, accompanied by an undercover deputy, to conduct a drug transaction with Turner. The confidential informant and undercover deputy parked at Lowe's, and Turner approached the vehicle window. The confidential informant exited the vehicle and accompanied Turner into the shed.
Although the confidential informant wore a hidden camera, the video admitted into evidence does not show Turner possessing the methamphetamine1 or making an exchange for money. The deputies who testified did not see Turner in possession of the methamphetamine. Further, the State did not present fingerprint evidence relating to the baggie containing the methamphetamine. Evidence of Turner's guilt was comprised mostly of the testimony of the paid confidential informant. We recognize, however, that the video casts doubt on Turner's testimony that the confidential informant planted the methamphetamine in the shed rafters earlier that day and retrieved those drugs upon entering the shed.
During closing argument, Turner asserted that had the Florida Department of Law Enforcement processed the baggie containing the methamphetamine for fingerprints, his fingerprints would not have been on the baggie. The State objected, arguing that there was no evidence supporting Turner's claim. In a bench conference, Turner clarified that he intended to argue that the lack of fingerprint evidence was a factor the jury could consider in determining whether the State met its burden of proof. The trial court sustained the State's objection, reasoning, "I don't see your nexus of how you've shown that fingerprints are something that is required for them to prove their case."
Turner asserts that the trial court erred in disallowing his argument that the lack of fingerprint evidence constituted reasonable doubt. We find that the trial court properly sustained the State's initial objection because Turner's argument that his fingerprints would not have been on the baggie was unsupported by the evidence.2 Nevertheless, we agree with Turner that the trial court erred in disallowing his argument after he clarified his...
To continue reading
Request your trial