State v. Taplis
| Decision Date | 15 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-2467,96-2467 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2450 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. George TAPLIS, Respondent. Fifth District |
Steve Alexander, State Attorney, and Gary L. Wood, Assistant State Attorney, Palatka, Petitioner.
Michael W. Woodward of Keyser & Woodward, P.A., Interlachen, for Respondent.
The primary issue in this case is whether one must show a probability (as opposed to a mere possibility) of tampering in order to exclude relevant physical evidence when there is a gap in the chain of custody. If so, a subsidiary issue remains as to whether the facts of this case reveal evidence of a probability of tampering. We hold that the burden of one attempting to bar otherwise relevant evidence is to show a likelihood of tampering (probability) and that the evidence in this case does not meet that test. We therefore grant certiorari and quash the trial court's order that bars the introduction of samples taken from the burned vehicle.
George Taplis had been driving his wife's vehicle when it was reported that the vehicle was on fire. When the Putnam County officials responded to the scene, the vehicle was almost completely destroyed by fire. A member of the Fire Service pried open the trunk to extinguish the fire. When the owner had failed to have the car removed from the street within three days, the County had the vehicle towed to the Palatka Auto Body lot. After paying the insurance claim and after obtaining the consent of the owner (Taplis' wife), the insurance company had the vehicle towed to a secure lot in Orlando. Fire investigators from Tampa were then employed to examine the vehicle in order to determine the cause of the fire. Photographs were taken and samples of fire debris were taken from inside the passenger compartment. These samples were sent to a private lab for analysis. As a result of these tests, Taplis was charged with burning to defraud an insurer.
Taplis moved to prevent the introduction of the evidence taken from the examination of the vehicle on the basis that the vehicle had not been properly preserved and therefore the results of the examination "may well be" the product of contamination or tampering; further, that by failing to properly preserve the vehicle, exculpatory evidence important to the defense may have been lost. The trial court, after taking testimony, granted the motion, stating:
Based on these findings, this Court concludes that there was an insufficient (if any) chain of custody to preserve the condition and integrity of the swath and belt for evidentiary purposes. The risk of contamination/tampering (intentional or unintentional) renders the admission an intolerable risk of prejudice.
It is evident from the above, and from other statements in the record, that the trial court was of the opinion that the mere possibility of contamination or tampering was sufficient to bar the introduction of the evidence. This belief may have been based on dictum in Dodd v. State,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...must show there was a probability that the evidence was tampered with. See Floyd, 850 So. 2d at 399 (citing State v. Taplis, 684 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (party attempting to exclude relevant physical evidence based on gap in chain of custody must show probability of tampering), ......
-
Anderson v. Sec'y Dep't of Corr.
... ... A. FITZPATRICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ... On ... February 16, 2022, Petitioner Ethan Anderson, a state inmate ... represented by counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas ... corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. He also ... Jordan v. State , 707 So.2d 816 (Fla. 5th DCA), ... approved on other grounds , 720 So.2d 1077 (Fla ... 1998); State v. Taplis , 684 So.2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA ... 1996), rev. dismissed , 703 So.2d 453 (Fla. 1997); ... Davis v. State , 788 So.2d 308, 310 (Fla. 5th ... ...
-
Floyd v. State
... ... See State v. Taplis, 684 So.2d 214, 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (party attempting to exclude relevant physical evidence based on gap in chain of custody must show probability of tampering); see also Jordan v. State, 707 So.2d 816, 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (when gap in chain of custody is alleged, party seeking to ... ...
-
Davis v. State, 5D00-1252.
...5th DCA 1999); Jordan v. State, 707 So.2d 816 (Fla. 5th DCA), approved on other grounds, 720 So.2d 1077 (Fla.1998); State v. Taplis, 684 So.2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), rev. dismissed, 703 So.2d 453 Deputy Casey's explanation dispelled any clam of tampering with the evidence and it was prope......
-
Dui defense
...was a probability of tampering with the evidence. [ Jordan v. State , 707 So. 2d 816, 818 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) ( citing State v. Taplis , 684 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), rev . dismissed , 703 So. 2d 453 (Fla.1977).] “A mere possibility of tampering is insufficient.” [ Id .] §16:71 Testim......