STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD H. JAMES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appeals from an order suppressing evidence of marijuana contraband that was destroyed by the sheriff's department. The court reverses, holding that the defendant suffered no demonstrable prejudice from the destruction because he had prior opportunity to test the contraband and his own escape caused the delay that resulted in its destruction.
The court reversed the suppression order, holding that the defendant was not entitled to relief because he failed to show demonstrable prejudice. The defendant had ample opportunity to test the contraband before the original trial date but chose only to cross-examine the chemist, and the defendant's own escape caused the two-year delay during which the contraband was destroyed.
[1] A defendant must generally demonstrate prejudice to be entitled to relief when evidence is destroyed.
[2] A defendant's failure to request testing of alleged contraband when afforded the opportunity, combined with a significant delay in proceedings caused by the defendant, ma…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Where the destruction of evidence is unnecessary and is not an unavoidable result of the testing process, introduction of testimony concerning the evidence may violate a defendant's due process rights.”
Establishes the general rule regarding when destruction of evidence may violate due process
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe state charged Richard H. James with marijuana possession. The defendant was informed he could test the contraband and his counsel deposed the stat…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Demonstrable Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Chief Judge.
The state appeals from an order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence concerning contraband which had been destroyed by the sheriff’s department. We reverse.
The state filed an information charging the defendant, Richard H. James, with possession of marijuana. In response to his demand for discovery, the state informed him that, he could test the alleged contraband. His counsel then deposed the state’s chemist concerning the chain of custody and analysis of the contraband, but did not ask to conduct any tests. Trial was set for November 7,1978, at which time the state’s chemist appeared and brought the contraband. The defendant, however, had escaped. He was arrested two years later and trial was reset. Prior to trial, the state learned that the contraband had been destroyed by the sheriff’s department as part of its routine procedure for destroying contraband in older cases. The state immediately informed the defendant who then moved to suppress the evidence of contraband. The court granted the motion and this appeal ensued.
Where the destruction of evidence is unnecessary and is not an unavoidable result of the testing process, introduction of testimony concerning the evidence may violate a defendant’s due process rights. For example, where a state’s chemist intention ally destroyed a substance alleged to be cocaine after the defendant had filed a timely notice to produce and the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, the appellate court overturned the defendant’s conviction. Stipp v. State, 371 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
However, to be entitled to relief, a defendant generally must show that the destruction of evidence resulted in some demonstrable prejudice to him. See, e. g., United States v. Herndon, 536 F. 2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1976); State v. Snell, 391 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Adams v. State, 367 So. 2d 635 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Farrell v. State, 317 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). In Herndon the government seized and destroyed illegal moonshine whiskey before trial.
The trial court found that the defendant failed to establish that he had been prejudiced by the evidence’s destruction. There, the court noted that the defendant had made his first demand for the physical evidence in the middle of the trial, some ten months after his indictment.
Moreover, defense counsel had stated that he did not file a motion to obtain a sample of the whiskey mash because he preferred merely to cross-examine the expert witness as to his analysis.
Herndon is analogous to the situation in the instant case. Here, defense counsel also had the opportunity, prior to the initial trial date, to test the alleged contraband and failed to do so. Instead, he chose to cross-examine the state’s chemist concerning his analysis.
Moreover, the defendant by his escape delayed the trial for two years by which time the sheriff’s department, as part of its routine procedure, had destroyed the evidence. It was only after the case had been reset for trial and defense counsel knew of the destruction of the contraband that he requested production of that evidence. While mere delay of a trial would not ordinarily excuse the destruction of crucial evidence, the fact that defense counsel had ample opportunity to test the contraband, combined with the delay unlawfully caused by the defendant, demonstrate that the defendant was not prejudiced by the destruction of the evidence.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
GRIMES and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. del Gaudio, 445 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…truction of unintelligible tapes of part of drug transaction); Budman v. State, 362 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss upon finding of good faith destruction of inaudible tapes of drug transaction); State v. James, 404 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (reversing grant of motion to dismiss upon finding of good faith destruction of contraband, where defendant who had deposed chemist had ample opportunity to test contraband, and contraband routinely destroyed only after inordinate…
-
State v. Leroney Hills, 467 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…ge problems due to its bulk. “Where the destruction of evidence is unnecessary and is not an unavoidable result of the testing process, introduction of testimony concerning the evidence may violate a defendant’s due process rights.” State v. James, 404 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). In light of the importance of those rights, the state’s failure to freeze the blood samples resulted in their unnecessary destruction. However, as set forth above, “to be entitled to relief, a defendant generally must show that t…
-
Scott v. State, 490 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. Marshall, 476 So. 2d 150 (Fla.1985); Houser v. State, 474 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1985); State v. Murray, 443 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1984); State v. James, 404 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Austin v. State, 336 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Jones v. State, 217 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Herndon, 536 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1976)
- Burns v. Seymour Dermer & K Audio & T. V., Inc., 371 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Farrell v. State, 317 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Adams v. State, 367 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- State v. Snell, 391 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)