RIVERA v. STATE (2002)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

Wildo RIVERA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D00-3178.

Decided: February 06, 2002

Before JORGENSON, GODERICH, and FLETCHER, JJ.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Frank J. Ingrassia, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Wildo Rivera appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence. For the following reasons, we reverse.

The trial court abused its discretion in denying Rivera's motion for a mistrial. Police officer Alvarez's testimony that, based on out-of-court conversations with the chief prosecution eye-witness, he was “100 percent” sure that he “got the right guy,” was inadmissible and highly prejudicial. See Martinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074, 1079 (Fla.2000) (holding that “a witness's opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused is not admissible,” and “there is an increased danger of prejudice when the investigating officer is allowed to express his or her opinion about the defendant's guilt”); Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493, 500 (Fla.1992); Sosa-Valdez v. State, 785 So.2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The state's reference during closing argument to the officer's inadmissible testimony compounded the error. See Martinez, 761 So.2d at 1081.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network