Osario v. State, 526 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Osario v. State, 526 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Petion v. State (fladistctapp, 2009-03-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Petion v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
See Armalin v. State, 884 So.2d 458, 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Batten v. State, 770 So.2d 271, 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Lawrence v. State, 766 So.2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Daley v. State, 760 So.2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Moore v. State, 711 So.2d 1185, 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Dunning v. State, 695 So.2d 473, 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Wheeler v. State, 690 So.2d 1369, 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Dean v. State, 690 So.2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Osario v. State, 526 So.2d 157, 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wheeler v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Osario v. State, 526 So.2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (testimony concerning *1372 experience with common drug-courier practices irrelevant and prejudicial).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shelton v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Hargrove v. State, 431 So.2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (court condemned, as irrelevant, testimony of a police officer that based on his experience, the post-arrest statement that "I don't mess with the stuff" is a phrase uttered frequently by drug dealers to throw suspicion off themselves), and Osario v. State, 526 So.2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (officer's testimony concerning his experience with common drug-courier practices was irrelevant and prejudicial).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lowder v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Osario v. State, 526 So.2d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (officer's testimony concerning his experience with common drug-courier practices was irrelevant and prejudicial); Kellum v. State, 104 So.2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958) (testimony that other police officers committed larceny was irrelevant in prosecution of police officer for larceny); Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 , 350 A.2d 665 (1976) (where defendant gave post-arrest denial of involvement in robbery, it was error for prosecution to elicit irrelevant testimony from arresting officer that eighty percent of the one-thousand individuals he h…
Walter OSARIO, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
87-1203.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 18, 1988.
526 So. 2d 157
Stone.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Jeffrey L. Anderson, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

[*158] Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Eddie J. Bell, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

STONE, Judge.

The admission of rebuttal testimony by the arresting officer, concerning his experience with common drug courier practices, was irrelevant to any of the substantive issues in this case. Additionally, it was not within the scope of cross examination, nor was it introduced as background to explain the officer's conduct. See United States v. Hernandez-Cuartas, 717 F.2d 552 (11th Cir.), reh'g denied, 721 F.2d 822 (11th Cir.1983). The error in this case was not harmless.

The judgment and sentence are, therefore, reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.