A.A. v. State, No. 83-984
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | NESBITT |
| Citation | 461 So.2d 165 |
| Parties | A.A., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 83-984 |
| Decision Date | 04 December 1984 |
Page 165
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Third District.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1985.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard E. Doran, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before NESBITT, DANIEL S. PEARSON, and JORGENSON, JJ.
NESBITT, Judge.
The juvenile challenges his adjudication of delinquency based upon possession of marijuana. We affirm.
The sole point on appeal is whether the state adequately identified the substance seized as marijuana. The state's only witness, the arresting officer, testified that in his opinion the substance was marijuana. The state relies on this opinion to satisfy its burden that it prove beyond a reasonable
Page 166
doubt that the substance was marijuana.The officer had been with the police department for nine years and had spent four years in a special narcotics unit. During this time he had taken numerous courses related to narcotics investigation. The officer testified that during his career he had viewed and smelled "tons" of marijuana and that his identifications of substances as marijuana had always been corroborated by lab tests. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by finding the officer qualified, through his training and extensive work experience, as an "expert" in marijuana identification. § 90.702, Fla.Stat. (1983). See Jones v. State, 440 So.2d 570, 574 (Fla.1983); Turner v. State, 388 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA), dismissed, 394 So.2d 1154 (Fla.1980). 1
The officer's opinion that the substance seized in the present case was marijuana was based upon his sensory perceptions of sight and smell, as well as the facts that the substance was in a clear plastic baggie and the juvenile possessed "rolling papers." In essence, the juvenile argues that this is an insufficient basis for the opinion and that something more in the line of scientific or chemical proof is required. We disagree.
Our sister courts have consistently held that it is not necessary for the state to prove the identity of marijuana by chemical or scientific proof. See Dean v. State, 406 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), review denied, 413 So.2d 877 (Fla.1982); State v. Raulerson, 403 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Turner. Although scientific tests are probative in identifying marijuana, they are not the only means by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chavez v. State, No. SC07-952.
...and users as narcotics-identification experts. See, e.g., United States v. Dominguez, 992 F.2d 678, 681 (7th Cir.1993); A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 165-66 & n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Here, Chavez has not submitted decisions concerning whether a witness could be qualified as an expert with ......
-
State v. Northrup, No. 65911
...Cosgrove, 181 Conn. 562, 436 A.2d 33 (1980); Florida: Pama v. State, 552 So.2d 309 (Fla.Dist.App.1989);[16 Kan.App.2d 449] A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165 (Fla.Dist.App.1984); Hawaii: State v. Schofill, 63 Hawaii 77, 621 P.2d 364 (1980); Illinois: People v. Ortiz, 197 Ill.App.3d 250, 143 Ill.D......
-
Brooks v. State, No. SC92011.
...of the rocky substance contained in the sandwich bag obtained from Darryl Jenkins. a. IDENTITY OF THE ROCKY SUBSTANCE In A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 165-66 & n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the trial court allowed a police officer to testify as an expert with "specialized knowledge" that, in his......
-
State v. Watson, No. 88-421
...P.2d 196 (1954); People v. Steiner, 640 P.2d 250 (Colo.App.1981); People v. Edwards, 198 Colo. 52, 598 P.2d 126 (1979); A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165 (Fla.App.1984); State v. Schofill, 63 Haw. 77, 621 P.2d 364 (1980); The People v. Robinson, 14 Ill.2d 325, 153 N.E.2d 65 (1958); Copeland v. S......
-
Chavez v. State, No. SC07-952.
...and users as narcotics-identification experts. See, e.g., United States v. Dominguez, 992 F.2d 678, 681 (7th Cir.1993); A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 165-66 & n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Here, Chavez has not submitted decisions concerning whether a witness could be qualified as an expert with ......
-
State v. Northrup, No. 65911
...Cosgrove, 181 Conn. 562, 436 A.2d 33 (1980); Florida: Pama v. State, 552 So.2d 309 (Fla.Dist.App.1989);[16 Kan.App.2d 449] A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165 (Fla.Dist.App.1984); Hawaii: State v. Schofill, 63 Hawaii 77, 621 P.2d 364 (1980); Illinois: People v. Ortiz, 197 Ill.App.3d 250, 143 Ill.D......
-
Brooks v. State, No. SC92011.
...of the rocky substance contained in the sandwich bag obtained from Darryl Jenkins. a. IDENTITY OF THE ROCKY SUBSTANCE In A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 165-66 & n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the trial court allowed a police officer to testify as an expert with "specialized knowledge" that, in his......
-
State v. Watson, No. 88-421
...P.2d 196 (1954); People v. Steiner, 640 P.2d 250 (Colo.App.1981); People v. Edwards, 198 Colo. 52, 598 P.2d 126 (1979); A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165 (Fla.App.1984); State v. Schofill, 63 Haw. 77, 621 P.2d 364 (1980); The People v. Robinson, 14 Ill.2d 325, 153 N.E.2d 65 (1958); Copeland v. S......