State v. Atkins, 78-1796
| Decision Date | 28 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1796,78-1796 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Liberace ATKINS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie King, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellee.
The State of Florida appeals the dismissal of its information charging appellee with possession of heroin. We reverse.
Appellee was charged with this offense after two law enforcement officers came upon him in the back room of a pool hall while he was leaning over a bottle cap, three pieces of tin foil and a syringe. Heroin is frequently wrapped in tin foil packets for sale and is often prepared for injection in a bottle cap "cooker." The officers arrested appellee and seized the items, which they sent to Dr. Clarke Davidson, a forensic chemist employed by the Lee County Sheriff's Department. Dr. Davidson's tests established the presence of heroin and its common dilutents. His testing almost entirely consumed the residue in the bottle cap. The traces remaining were then sent to a crime laboratory in Sanford, Florida. The report of the crime lab indicated that there was an insufficient sample of residue left for positive identification.
On these facts, appellee moved to dismiss the charges contending that the state could not prove a prima facie case because no controlled substance could be introduced into evidence at trial. The trial court granted the motion. This was error.
The recent case of State v. Herrera, 365 So.2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) is dispositive. Herrera was arrested for possession of heroin. The suspect contraband drug was turned over to the crime laboratory of the Dade County Public Safety Department for chemical analysis. The testing revealed the presence of heroin. However, the heroin was unavoidably consumed during the test procedures. Our sister court found that "such a chemical test was part of the state's legitimate investigation of this case and cannot be considered in any sense improper conduct." 365 So.2d at 401. The court noted:
A different case would be presented if the suspect drug had been Negligently destroyed during the testing process or if an agent of the state had Intentionally or negligently destroyed or lost whatever remained of the suspect drug after the testing process had been completed. . . . No such showing, however, has been made in this case. (Emphasis supplied.)
The Herrera court stated the general rule with reference to the unavoidable destruction of contraband drugs during chemical testing. The court stated:
The law is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kaye
...due to its consumption during the testing. See also Edwards v. Oklahoma, 429 F.Supp. 668, 670-671 (W.D.Okl.1976); State v. Atkins, 369 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla.D.Ct.App.1979); State v. Herrera, 365 So.2d 399, 401 (Fla.D.Ct.App.1978), cert. den. 373 So.2d 459 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1979); Poole v. State, 29......
-
Hooks v. State
...a fair opportunity to be present during the testing. Stipp v. State, 371 So.2d 712, 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); State v. Atkins, 369 So.2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Herrera, 365 So.2d at We therefore grant the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the order below and remand for an evidentiary h......
-
Stipp v. State, 78-517
...In doing so we join with the decisions recently rendered in State v. Herrera, 365 So.2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) and State v. Atkins, 369 So.2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Appellant Donald Ray Stipp was tried for possession of cocaine. Before trial he moved to suppress evidence by testimony or ot......
-
G. E. G. v. State
...excusing the nonintroduction of evidence because of unavoidable destruction of the substance during testing. See, e.g., State v. Atkins, 369 So.2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Unavoidable destruction prevents the defendant from conducting an independent analysis of the substance, not an issue in......