Call us now:
Lawrence v State -5D2023-3653- 5th DCA – Seminole County
officer experience with other drug transactions – general criminal behavior – bolstering in drug case – unfairly prejudicial – invades province of jury
Controlled Buy Drug Case
Appellate Court Reverses Conviction Due to Improper Testimony in Drug Case
In a recent decision, the appellate court reversed the conviction of Eric Lawrence, who had been convicted on charges of the sale and possession of cocaine and unlawful use of a two-way communications device. Lawrence had been sentenced to 20 months in prison for the charges following a jury trial, but the court found that one aspect of the trial was flawed: the admission of improper general opinion testimony from law enforcement officers.
Drug Case Facts
This case is typical in the war on drugs. It begins with a person who is caught possessing drugs and then becomes a “CI” or cooperating informant who tries to work for the police in an effort to have their own charges reduced or dismissed. (The Court describes this person in this passage “When she participated in the instant drug transaction, she was working off her charges for that arrest by providing her source of drugs—Lawrence”)
Controlled Buy
The police get the CI here to arrange a buy of drugs from Lawrence, then meet somewhere, search the CI to make sure they don’t have any drugs on them, then send them off to buy drugs. The CI here swore the deal went down, and she gave money to Lawrence and he put the money in his truck. The problem is, when the police search Lawrence, the CI and the truck, there is no buy money, and the CI only was patted down – which is a problem since the detective admitted that in the past CI’s have hidden drugs on their person during similar operations. And lastly, the police admitted they did not actually see money or drugs transfer between the CI and Lawrence.
Lawrence’s appeal centered on two main issues. First, he argued that the trial court erred in allowing one of the investigating officers, Agent Jonathan Jusino, to testify based on his general experience with drug transactions. Specifically, Jusino had spoken about his extensive background observing drug deals and speculated that the behavior he witnessed in Lawrence’s case was similar to his previous experiences. Lawrence’s defense objected to this testimony, arguing that it was speculative and improper, as it did not directly relate to the specific facts of the case. The trial court allowed the testimony, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that it was inadmissible.
Improper Testimony in Drug Case
Specifically the Court described the officers testimony as follows:
The State then elicited that Jusino had witnessed over 50 hand-to-hand drug transactions. Jusino testified that based on these prior cases, the transaction in this case looked like a drug transaction (again, even though he could not see the money and drugs transferred). Justino explained that in the other drug transactions he had personally witnessed, there would customarily be a “swift hand motion back and forth,” and the instant transaction involved similar hand motions. Thus, he deduced that based on his prior experience with other drug transactions, he could infer that the exchange actually occurred in this case.
Furthermore:
to explain why he could not find the money immediately after the sale had taken place. Over defense counsel’s objection, the State was allowed to elicit that Justino had worked nearly 48 similar controlled buy cases in the past four years. He testified that, based on his prior experience, the money may not be found in cases like this because it is sometimes eaten or hidden in places in the vehicle where law enforcement could not find it. However, Justino could not specifically state that either of those two things happened in this case; and he conceded that in this case law enforcement did not search every area of the vehicle where money might be found.
General Behavior Testimony is Inadmissible in Drug Case
The appellate court pointed out that relying on an officer’s experience in this manner is problematic because it risks inviting the jury to convict based on generalizations rather than concrete evidence. Previous cases had similarly found that such testimony could unfairly prejudice the jury, as it could lead them to associate Lawrence’s behavior with other criminals rather than considering his case independently.
The Court notes “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)
In a jury trial, the relevance of general criminal behavior testimony “is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” White, 971 So. 2d at 972; § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2021)
The court found that Jusino’s testimony improperly bolstered the credibility of the confidential informant (CI), whose account of the drug exchange was crucial to the case. Since there was no direct evidence of the exchange of money and drugs—such as no drugs being found on Lawrence and no money recovered—the prosecution used Jusino’s testimony to fill in these gaps by relying on his experience with prior drug transactions. This kind of testimony, the court argued, unfairly suggested to the jury that Lawrence was guilty because his actions mirrored those of other drug dealers, rather than being based on the facts of his case.
Everyone has a right to be tried on the facts of their own case, but this principle can quickly get destroyed when the police and prosecution will do anything to get a conviction, including violating the rules of evidence and fairness which we all rely on every day.
Why Retaining an Attorney Matters
If you’re accused in any criminal matter, retaining an attorney is critical to protecting your rights. These cases require specialized skill, preparation and experience. For expert legal help, contact Gainesville Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman to protect your rights today.