Mangham v. State

Full title: Danyan Mangham, Appellant, v. The State of Florida, Appellee.

Court: Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Date published: Apr 7, 2021

318 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)

Opinion

No. 3D20-0382

04-07-2021

Danyan MANGHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Dayes v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., No. 3D19-1920, 314 So. 3d 718, 722–23 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 27, 2021) (quoting Linn v. Fossum, 946 So. 2d 1032, 1037-38 (Fla. 2006) ) ("an expert's testimony ‘may not merely be used as a conduit for the introduction of the otherwise inadmissible evidence’ "); 50 State Sec. Serv., Inc. v. Giangrandi, 132 So. 3d 1128, 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ("Where a trial court has weighed probative value against prejudicial impact before reaching its decision, an appellate court shall not overturn such a decision absent a clear abuse of discretion.") (internal citations omitted); Osagie v. State, 58 So. 3d 307, 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (finding error in admitting business records "without a custodian of the records or other qualified person testifying as to the accuracy of the records").