History
  • No items yet
midpage
Jamarillo v. State
576 So. 2d 349
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1991
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Khelifi v. State, 560 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We distinguish State v, Anders, 560 So.2d 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) and Hunter v. State, 531 So.2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) because in both cases the informant’s testimony was the key evidence regarding the drug transaction in which appellant was arrested. However, in the instant case, the appellant negotiated directly with the officers regarding the details of the transaction, all of whom testified against appellant. The informant’s testimony was not the vital part of the state’s case.

DELL, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Jamarillo v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Feb 27, 1991
Citation: 576 So. 2d 349
Docket Number: No. 90-0018
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.