Frederiksen v. State, 74--1296
| Decision Date | 06 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--1296,74--1296 |
| Parties | Fred A. FREDERIKSEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Paul Morris, Legal Intern, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Margarita Esquiroz, Asst. Atty., Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
Defendant-appellant, Fred A. Frederiksen, seeks review of a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of the crime of possession of a controlled substance (heroin). A sentence of five years confinement in the state penitentiary followed. We affirm.
One of defendant's contentions on appeal is that the trial court admitted into evidence over objection the packets of heroin.
Defendant Frederiksen argues that there was an indication of probable tampering with the heroin in that 56 packets of heroin were introduced into evidence at the time of trial whereas the arresting officers testified that they seized 57 packets thereof at the time of defendant's arrest. Also, there was some seemingly inconsistent testimony as to the color of the heroin, white or brown. Nevertheless, during the trial this color discrepancy was explained adequately by the prosecution. The State further established the continuous possession of the contraband from time it was seized by the arresting officers until it was introduced into evidence. We conclude, therefore, that there was no evidence of probable tampering with the heroin packets and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in permitting them to be admitted into evidence. Thus, this point of appellant must fail. See Stunson v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 294; Stevens v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 92; Bernard v. State, Fla.App.1973, 275 So.2d 34.
Defendant also urges as reversible error the admission of testimony concerning a collateral crime. We cannot agree.
This point is presented as a result of the testimony of Gary Brown, the driver of a delivery truck. Brown testified that he noticed two males following him as he stopped to make a delivery. Upon returning to his truck after making the delivery Brown noticed that two shoes boxes were missing. He called the police and gave the two investigating officers a description of the two males and indicated the direction in which they fled. The officers proceeded to a near-by motel and spotted the defendant, who met Brown's description,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peek v. State
...any way adulterated." Relevant physical evidence is admissible unless there is an indication of probable tampering. Frederiksen v. State, 312 So.2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Stunson v. State, 228 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Accord, United States v. Daughtry, 502 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1974). T......
-
Winchell v. State, 77-1738
...of the record shows this point to also be meritless. See, e. g., Wingert v. State, 353 So.2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Frederiksen v. State, 312 So.2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and Stunson v. State, 228 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA Appellant's first and third points on appeal raise, basically, the qu......
-
Clark v. State, 76--149
...explained in order that an intelligent account of the circumstances of his making the statement could be given. Cf. Frederiksen v. State, 312 So.2d 217 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). If the officer had only referred to the fact of placing appellant under arrest, we would have no qualms about the judgme......
-
Craig v. State, 78-2188
...Steven L. Bolotin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. Before PEARSON, HUBBART and SCHWARTZ, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Frederiksen v. State, 312 So.2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Stunson v. State, 228 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA ...