From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Decca v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 26, 1966
186 So. 2d 92 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

Opinion

No. 65-858.

May 10, 1966. Rehearing Denied May 26, 1966.

Appeal from the Criminal Court of Record, Dade County, Jack M. Turner, J.

Harvey J. St. Jean and Lawrence E. Hoffman, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Herbert P. Benn, First Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C.J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.


The appellant seeks review of a conviction entered by the trial court in a non-jury trial, upon the charge of unlawful possession and sale of marijuana.

The State produced one witness and the defendant took the stand in his own behalf and offered an alibi. Subsequently, the trial court found him guilty and this appeal ensued.

In his brief, the appellant says: "* * * it is obvious that the uncorroborated testimony of one man, in effect, was the basis of the conviction herein." In light of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida, in State v. Sebastian, Fla. 1965, 171 So.2d 893, and in the opinion of this court, in Wright v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 182 So.2d 264, this is no reason to find reversible error. The appellant also urges that the State should have been required to reveal the name of the confidential informant who led the State's witness to the time and place where the purchase of marijuana was completed. We reject this contention. The defendant's alibi could have been established by other witnesses.

Therefore, the conviction, adjudication, and sentence, here under review is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Decca v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 26, 1966
186 So. 2d 92 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
Case details for

Decca v. State

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL DECCA, A/K/A MIKE DECCA, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: May 26, 1966

Citations

186 So. 2d 92 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

Citing Cases

Drayton v. State

Fourth, even though the defense was an alibi and the informant could support or destroy it, this fact does…