G. E. G. v. State
| Decision Date | 22 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1929,78-1929 |
| Parties | In the Interest of G. E. G., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. /T4-199. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Cherry Grant, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Michael Barnette, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
In an adjudicatory hearing on a delinquency charge that the appellant-child had violated the law prohibiting the possession of cannabis, the State produced the baggie taken from the appellant, had it marked as an exhibit for identification purposes only, elicited testimony from the State's chemist that the contents was cannabis, but failed to formally introduce the baggie or contents into evidence.
Appellant relies for reversal on Alexander v. State, 288 So.2d 538 (Fla.3d DCA 1974), a drug case where, reversing a conviction, the Third District Court of Appeal said:
The packets ... having been marked for identification, but not introduced into evidence, defendant was denied thereby of a real opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution. For a mere formal proffer of an opportunity to cross-examine, where the circumstances as in the case at bar are such that the accused cannot effectively avail himself of it, is not a sufficient observance of the right.
In Smith v. State, 305 So.2d 868 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), the same court did not follow the reasoning in Alexander and held that no right of confrontation or cross-examination was denied when the State introduced photographs of a stolen power saw but not the saw itself.
Also, since Alexander, drug convictions based only on the testimony of a chemist, where the drug was unavoidably consumed in the testing, have been upheld. State v. Atkins, 369 So.2d 389 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); State v. Herrera, 365 So.2d 399 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).
This is not a case where some right of an accused to examine tangible inculpatory evidence has been violated because of its willful, negligent, or unnecessary loss or destruction by the State. See Stipp v. State, 371 So.2d 712 (Fla.4th DCA 1979), and cases cited therein.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minnick v. State
...to witnesses, and does not include physical evidence. United States v. Herndon, 536 F.2d 1027, 1029 (5th Cir.1976); G.E.G. v. State, 389 So.2d 325, 326 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980); State v. Armstrong, 363 So.2d 38, 39 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978). or not there is any indication of probable tampering w......
-
Evans v. State
...to witnesses, and does not include physical evidence. United States v. Herndon, 536 F.2d 1027, 1029 (5th Cir.1976); G.E.G. v. State, 389 So.2d 325, 326 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980); State v. Armstrong, 363 So.2d 38, 39 Our examination of the record reflects that reference to the money box was mad......
-
Harrell v. State
...deprived of a constitutional right to confront witnesses and that the Alexander opinion has not been followed, see G. E. G. v. State, 389 So.2d 325, 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In State v. Williams, 198 So.2d 21 (Fla.1967), the Florida Supreme Court found that it could not review the issue of ......
-
Houser v. State
...it is the analysis itself, rather than the physical substance, which is of primary importance to a defendant. See G.E.G. v. State, 389 So.2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); cf., Trombetta, supra. In the present case the state's blood analysis expert was available for cross-examination, and appella......