Court Opinion

ID: 7583254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 06:32:21.939411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:24:32.851183
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
Appellant raises two points. As to the first point, we reverse and remand for a new trial because of the absence of proof of the confidential informant’s consent to the taped conversation. See State v. Welker, 536 So.2d 1017 (Fla.1988). We find no merit to appellant’s second point; namely, her attack upon the information.
GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs.
DELL, J., concurs specially with opinion.
GARRETT, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.