Dorsett v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that evidence of four uncharged narcotics sales that had occurred within two hours of charged narcotics sale was necessary to establish context of charged crime
• concluding that evidence of a prior uncharged hand-to-hand transaction was properly admitted pursuant to section 90.402 as relevant evidence, evidence which was inextricably intertwined with the crime charged and offered to establish the entire context of events for the charged offense
• holding where evidence of a prior drug transaction went towards a material issue in dispute, there was no abuse of discretion in admission of the evidence
• finding that collateral crimes evidence-admitted under section 90.402 is ad mitted based on its relevance, and the admissibility of collateral crimes evidence under section 90.402 does not require notice
• finding evidence explaining why detective focused his surveillance on defendant was relevant and necessary to establish the reliability of the detective’s identification of the defendant and the absence of mistake
• “Evidence is inextricably intertwined if the evidence is necessary to ... establish the entire context out of which the charged crime(s) arose ....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).