Stunson v. State
| Decision Date | 12 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 69--307,69--307 |
| Citation | 228 So.2d 294 |
| Parties | Keith Valjene STUNSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Meyer, Weiss, Rose & Arkin, and William E. Shockett, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant seeks review of his conviction, pursuant to a nonjury trial finding him guilty of unlawful possession and sale of marijuana. The appellant has preserved two points on appeal: (1) Alleged error in the admission into evidence of two matchboxes of marijuana, when the State failed to establish by live witnesses the continuous possession of the contraband from the time of its sale until the time of its introduction into evidence. (2) The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. We affirm.
It is true that the record fails to reveal evidence by live witnesses as to who had in their possession or control the contraband involved from the time of its sale until the time of its introduction into evidence. However, it appears from the authorities cited that the test is whether or not there is an indication of probable tampering with the evidence. In this connection, see the following: Gallego v. United States, Ct. of App. 9th Cir. 1960, 276 F.2d 914; State v. Anderson, 242 Or. 368, 409 P.2d 681. It is clear from the record that the whereabouts of the contraband was fully explained at all times from the incident of the sale until introduction into evidence. The continuous whereabouts of the contraband was amply supported by the State's witnesses and it was within the power of the trial judge to permit it into evidence. State v. Robinson, 203 Kan. 304, 454 P.2d 527; Oliver v. State, S.Ct.Nev. 1969, 449 P.2d 252; Hilliard v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 290, 340 S.W.2d 494.
As to the sufficiency of the evidence, a review of the record reveals substantial competent evidence which, together with the reasonable inferences therefrom, were sufficient to support the conviction on the charges as made. Therefore, it should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lambert v. State
...F.2d 914 (C.C.A. 9th, 1960). The test is whether or not there is an indication of probable tampering with the evidence. Stunson v. Florida, 228 So.2d 294 (Fla.App.1969). In such matters the presumption 276 So.2d at 653. See also Morris v. State, 436 So.2d 1381, 1382 (Miss.1983). Based on th......
-
State v. Davis
...United States v. Santiago, 534 F.2d 768 (7th Cir. 1976); United States v. Campopiano, 446 F.2d 869 (2d Cir. 1971); Stunson v. State, 228 So.2d 294 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1969); Blount v. State, 143 Ga.App. 845, 846, 240 S.E.2d 216, 217 (1977); People v. Schulz, 1 Ill.App.3d 212, 273 N.E.2d 736 (1......
-
Peek v. State
...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). The record here reflects no hint of tampering, thus t......
-
Stephen v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...A body of law had developed on the subject when the physical evidence has been offered by the prosecution. Since Stunson v. State, 228 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) cert. denied 237 So.2d 179 (Fla. 1970), courts have recognized the principles initially set forth in United States v. S.B. Peni......