Jason Elysse v. The State of Florida

No. 3D23-1322 · Florida Third District Court of Appeal · May 7, 2025 · No. 3D23-1322

Summary

The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed Jason Elysse’s convictions and sentences for attempted cocaine trafficking, conspiracy to traffic cocaine, and conspiracy to launder money. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying disclosure of a confidential informant without an in camera hearing, denying a last-minute continuance to substitute counsel, or admitting a cellphone video under the silent-witness authentication method.

Court
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Writing for the Court
Emas; Scales; Gooden
Jurisdiction
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Decision date
May 7, 2025
Docket number
3D23-1322
Procedural posture
Elysse appealed his convictions and sentences for attempted cocaine trafficking, conspiracy to traffic cocaine, and conspiracy to launder money.
Standard of review
Abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published opinion; precedential value subject to any later disposition on rehearing.
Parties
Jason Elysse v. The State of Florida
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureevidenceauthenticationappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

criminal procedureevidenceappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred by denying Elysse's sworn motion to compel disclosure of the confidential informant without first conducting an in camera hearing.
  2. Whether the trial court erred by denying Elysse's eleventh-hour request for a continuance to substitute private counsel.
  3. Whether the trial court erred by overruling Elysse's authentication objection and admitting the cellphone video.

Holdings

  1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Elysse's sworn motion to compel disclosure of the confidential informant without first conducting an in camera hearing.
  2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Elysse's eleventh-hour, de facto motion for a continuance to substitute private counsel.
  3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Elysse's authentication objection and admitting the cellphone video.

Key quotations

To invoke an in camera hearing, a defendant must file a sworn motion or affidavit alleging facts concerning the informant’s involvement which, if true, would support the possibility of a specific asserted defense.
When the defendant requests a continuance on the eve of trial or in the middle of trial, as in this case, to allow time to retain counsel and for counsel to prepare, the trial court must balance the countervailing interests of the effective administration of the courts with the defendant’s right to private counsel of his choice.
A trial judge may admit a photograph under the silent witness method [of authentication] after considering the following factors

Factual background

The case arose from a Hialeah Police Department reverse sting operation involving an intermediary confidential informant. Elysse was convicted and sentenced for attempted cocaine trafficking, conspiracy to traffic cocaine, and conspiracy to launder money. At trial, the court declined to require disclosure of the informant without first conducting an in camera hearing, denied Elysse's late request to substitute privately retained counsel, and admitted a cellphone video showing bundles of cash and Elysse's voice expressing readiness to conduct a drug purchase.

Procedural history

The Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County denied Elysse's motion to compel disclosure of a confidential informant, denied his eleventh-hour request for a continuance to substitute private counsel, and admitted a cellphone video over an authentication objection. Elysse appealed those rulings and his resulting convictions and sentences. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…