Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

734 So. 2d 1130

Docket No. 98-2314.

Hamilton v. State

Anthony HAMILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 14, 1999.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1999-05-14

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2010

9 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“not unusual for one individual to direct a potential buyer to a second individual for consummation of the drug sale,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 971 So. 2d 972 - White v. State

Relies on Dean v. State · Thomas v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-05-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Richard M. Summa, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Giselle Lylen Rivera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Anthony Hamilton (Hamilton) seeks review of his conviction for sale and delivery of cocaine following a jury trial. He argues, and we agree, that the trial judge committed error by admitting into evidence testimony describing a criminal behavior pattern. Dean v. State,690 So.2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Thomas v. State,673 So.2d 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). This evidence was elicited by the state from one of its law enforcement witnesses who testified that in a drug transaction, it was not unusual for one individual to direct a potential buyer to a second individual for consummation of the drug sale.

¶5Because admission of this evidence constituted error and was harmful under the circumstances of this case, we reverse the judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial.

¶6REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

¶7WOLF, KAHN and LAWRENCE, JJ., CONCUR.

/734/so2d/1130 · .json · Public domain