DAVID RODGERS, APPELLANT,

v.

JANE SADLER, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• G. E. G. v. State, 417 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 1982)
  …he crime, such as the fatal bullet itself, which was introduced. Similarly unaffected by our decision are cases excusing the nonintro-duction 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 this case. More importantly, the state in petitioner’s trial offered absolutely no excuse for its failure to…
• In the Interest of G. E. G. v. State, 389 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
  …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 destructio…
• State v. T.L.W., 457 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
  …tion provision of the sixth amendment refers to witnesses and does not encompass physical evidence. Strahorn v. State, 436 So. 2d 447, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), citing State v. Armstrong, 363 So. 2d 38, 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). See also State v. Atkins, 369 So. 2d 389, 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). As to appellee’s second argument, we recognize that intentional or negligent destruction of suspect drugs by the state or its agents, constitutes a due process violation. State v. Atkins, 369 So. 2d at 390, citing State v.…

Authorities Cited

• Wolk v. Leak, 70 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1954)
• Green v. State, 248 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
• Villano v. Harper, 248 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)