HINKSON v. STATE (2019)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dorian HINKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-940

Decided: November 06, 2019

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and GORDO, JJ.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and James A. Odell, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Jeffrey R. Geldens, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The Defendant, Dorian Hinkson, raises multiple issues regarding the trial court’s evidentiary rulings during his trial. “An appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s determination that evidence is relevant and admissible absent an abuse of discretion.” Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678, 693 (Fla. 2013); see Poole v. State, 151 So. 3d 402, 414 (Fla. 2014) (“This Court recognizes the broad discretion granted to trial courts in determining the relevance of evidence; such a determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”). After reviewing the record and the transcripts, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Affirmed.

LOGUE, J.

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Out of date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