Watson v. State, 94-0513
| Decision Date | 17 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-0513,94-0513 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D928 Carolene WATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Stephen A. Rapp, Judge. L.T. Case No. 93-7154 CF.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Eric M. Cumfer, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sarah B. Mayer, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant, Carolene Watson, appeals her conviction, after a jury trial, for the sale of cocaine. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand.
As her first issue on appeal, appellant contends that she was prejudiced by the arresting officer's testimony which amounted to a comment about the nature of the area in which she was arrested. In explaining how appellant's arrest occurred, the officer testified that the sheriff's department was doing "buy-bust" operations during which "undercover officers will go out and attempt to make purchases of narcotics in narcotics areas." Although comments that the defendant was arrested in a high-crime area are often prejudicial and constitute reversible error, Sherrod v. State, 582 So.2d 814 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the supreme court has held that such comments do not per se warrant reversal. Gillion v. State, 573 So.2d 810 (Fla.1991). Instead, reviewing courts must consider whether prejudice exists based on the facts of each case. Id. at 812.
In Gillion, the court affirmed the conviction for sale of cocaine, reasoning that the testimony at issue was merely the officer's account of what he observed and not a comment on the character of the location or an attempt to impugn the area's reputation. Id. at 811. The court found that the officer's observations merely aided the jury in placing the testimony in context by clarifying "why this area was selected for this police operation." Id.; see also Conner v. State, 582 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (). Accordingly, we hold that in the instant case the officer's comments did not unduly prejudice the jury since they amounted to mere background information...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lelieve v. State
...Instead, reviewing courts must consider whether prejudice exists based on the facts of each case. Id. at 812. Watson v. State, 672 So.2d 71, 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Lubin, 754 So.2d at 143 (concluding that the existence of undue prejudice stemming from testimony regarding a high cr......
-
Goodwin v. State
...but reserved its ruling on the motion for mistrial until after the trial, at which time the motion was denied based on Watson v. State, 672 So.2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 679 So.2d 775 Our review of the record convinces us that this single comment was not "unduly prejudicial," see Gi......
-
Wheeler v. State, 96-1199
...lack of intent. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Harris v. State, 655 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); cf. Watson v. State, 672 So.2d 71 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 679 So.2d 775 (Fla.1996) (admission of testimony concerning undercover officer's attempt to purchase narcot......
- Watson v. State