Summary
In Jamarillo v. State, 576 So.2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), and in Khelifi v. State, 560 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), this court distinguished Anders and Hunter on the ground that there was no violation of due process where the informant's testimony was not a vital part of the state's case.
Summary of this case from Krajewski v. StateOpinion
No. 90-0018.
February 27, 1991. Rehearing Denied April 12, 1991.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Broward County, Arthur J. Franza, J.
Fred Haddad, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Douglas J. Glaid, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Affirmed. Khelifi v. State, 560 So.2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We distinguish State v. Anders, 560 So.2d 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) and Hunter v. State, 531 So.2d 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) because in both cases the informant's testimony was the key evidence regarding the drug transaction in which appellant was arrested. However, in the instant case, the appellant negotiated directly with the officers regarding the details of the transaction, all of whom testified against appellant. The informant's testimony was not the vital part of the state's case.
DELL, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.