Latimore v. State

Appellant was convicted of burglary of a conveyance. He argues that the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce evidence of his arrest in an area known and targeted by police for its high rate of car thefts and burglaries. We agree that admission of this evidence, compounded by the prosecutor’s opening and closing remarks concerning the area’s reputation, was reversible error.

Appellant was arrested for burglary of a conveyance during a decoy operation in downtown Fort Lauderdale. Officers conducting the decoy operation testified that they observed appellant walk up to the decoy…