Baskin v. State, 732 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Baskin v. State, 732 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Eric Lawrence v. State of Florida (fladistctapp, 2024-11-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eric Lawrence v. State of Florida (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Our appellate courts have repeatedly held that “a defendant has a right to be tried based on the evidence against him or her, not on the characteristics or general behavior of certain classes of criminals in general.” Baskin v. State, 732 So. 2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reynolds v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
The law is well settled that “general criminal behavior testimony based upon a law enforcement officer’s observations and experience in the investigation of other cases is inadmissible as substantive proof of a defendant’s guilt, because a defendant has a right to be tried based on the evidence against him or her, not on the characteristics or general behavior of certain classes of criminals in general.” Baskin v. State, 732 So.2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (citations omitted).
cited Cited "see" White v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baskin v. State, 732 So.2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Dean v. State, 690 So.2d 720, 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jackson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Baskin v. State, 732 So.2d 1179, 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“[GJeneral criminal behavior testimony based upon a law enforcement officer’s observations and experience in the investigation of other cases is inadmissible as substantive proof of a defendant’s guilt, because a defendant has a right to be tried based on the evidence against him or her, not on the characteristics or general behavior of certain classes of criminals in general.” (citations omitted)); Dean v. State, 690 So.2d 720, 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“This court has repeatedly condemned testimony about behavior …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Henderson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Baskin v. State, 732 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that testimony concerning general criminal behavior *1018 based on a law enforcement officer's experience and investigation in other cases is inadmissible); Florio v. State, 554 So.2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (noting that while a police officer can properly describe his direct observations, his opinion based on those observations as to whether the defendant had sold drugs before is impermissible).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Washington v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Baskin v. State, 732 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Leaks v. State, 23 Fla. L.
David Leon BASKIN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
98-969.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Apr 27, 1999.
732 So. 2d 1179
Joanos.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

[*1180] Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Kristina White, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

JOANOS, J.

In this direct appeal, David Leon Baskin (appellant) appeals his conviction and the sentences imposed after a jury found him guilty of two counts of sale of crack cocaine, in violation of section 893.13(1)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1997). Appellant asserts as error that the investigating detective was permitted to testify over defense objection that it is not uncommon for drug dealers to keep their drugs at a separate location, rather than carrying such contraband on their respective persons. We affirm, because the error was harmless under the circumstances of this case.

As appellant's counsel correctly asserts, the law is well settled that general criminal behavior testimony based upon a law enforcement officer's observations and experience in the investigation of other cases is inadmissible as substantive proof of a defendant's guilt, because a defendant has a right to be tried based on the evidence against him or her, not on the characteristics or general behavior of certain classes of criminals in general. See, e.g., Dean v. State, 690 So.2d 720, 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Lowder v. State, 589 So.2d 933, 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), dismissed, 598 So.2d 78 (Fla.1992).

The controlling evidentiary issue in this case was the credibility of the undercover investigating officer who testified that appellant sold crack cocaine to him on two occasions. Appellant testified in his own behalf, denying that he sold crack cocaine to the detective. In defense, appellant suggested the detective might have confused appellant with two other individuals similar to him in appearance.

Whether drug dealers keep the substance on their persons during transactions or store it in a separate location, was not an issue in this case, and had no bearing on the defense of confused identity. Under both the rule pronounced in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986), and pursuant to section 924.051(7), Florida Statutes, the error was harmless. See also Dunning v. State, 695 So.2d 473, 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR.