From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Black v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
May 9, 1991
578 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1991)

Opinion

No. 77130.

May 9, 1991.

Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Certified Great Public Importance, Fourth District, Case No. 89-2912 (Broward County).

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Nancy Perez, Asst. Public Defender, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Sylvia Alonso, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.


We review Black v. State, 569 So.2d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), in which the court certified the following question as one of great public importance:

DOES THE MERE IDENTIFICATION OF A LOCATION AS A HIGH CRIME AREA UNDULY PREJUDICE A DEFENDANT WHO IS ARRESTED THERE?
Id. at 942. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

Subsequent to the decision below, this Court issued an opinion in Gillion v. State, 573 So.2d 810 (Fla. 1991), in which we held that the identification of the location in which the defendant was arrested as a high crime area may or may not be unduly prejudicial, depending upon the circumstances of the case. Therefore, we remand the instant case to the district court of appeal for consideration in light of our opinion in Gillion.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Black v. State

Supreme Court of Florida
May 9, 1991
578 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1991)
Case details for

Black v. State

Case Details

Full title:CARLTON BLACK, PETITIONER, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Florida

Date published: May 9, 1991

Citations

578 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1991)

Citing Cases

West v. State

Affirmed. See Black v. State, 578 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 1991); Gillion v. State, 573 So.2d 810 (Fla. 1991);…

Lelieve v. State

The admission of [high-crime or drug area] evidence does not constitute per se reversible error, however.…