JOHN DOUGLAS MADDOX, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Appellant Maddox appealed his conviction for unlawful sale of a controlled substance, claiming the trial court improperly allowed testimony about laboratory analysis of the substance. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the chemist's expert testimony was admissible because chain of custody was established through the laboratory analysis, and appellant had not requested access to the substance for his own expert examination.
The chemist's testimony was properly admitted. Although chain of custody was broken after the laboratory analysis, chain of custody was established through the analysis itself, making the expert testimony admissible. The appellant's failure to request production of or inspect the tangible evidence meant he did not suffer abridgment of his right to full cross-examination.
[1] A chemist's testimony regarding the results of a laboratory analysis of a substance is admissible even if the substance itself is not admitted into evidence due to a brea…
[2] A defendant's right to a full and complete cross-examination of an expert witness is not abridged when the tangible evidence examined by the expert is unavailable, if the…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“But since "chain of custody" was established until and including the laboratory analysis, the chemist's testimony was not thereby inadmissible.”
Establishes the court's holding that expert testimony is admissible when chain of custody is established through the point of analysis, even if broken thereafter.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn undercover police officer purchased a controlled substance from appellant. The substance was delivered to a laboratory chemist who tested it and te…
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 Chain Of Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a judgment of conviction and sentence for the unlawful sale of a controlled substance. Appellant has failed to present any point of reversible error, and we accordingly affirm the order appealed.
Among other allegations of error, appellant asserts that the trial court permitted improper testimony regarding the chemical composition of the substance which appellant was found to have sold. The evidence establishes that an undercover police officer purchased the substance from appellant, and then delivered the substance to a laboratory chemist for analysis. The chemist tested the substance and, over appellant’s objection, testified as to the results of the laboratory test. The substance was not received into evidence, despite the state’s proffer, because “chain of custody” was not established subsequent to the laboratory analysis. But since “chain of custody” was established until and including the laboratory analysis, the chemist’s testimony was not thereby inadmissible. Cf., G. E. G. v. State, 389 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
In Johnson v. State, 249 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), the state presented expert testimony derived from an examination of tangible evidence which was thereafter lost. Noting that the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure permit a defendant’s examination of tangible evidence,1 the court ruled that, insofar as the defendant was precluded from pursuing such discovery the defendant’s “right to a full and complete cross-examination” of the state’s witness was abridged. But in Johnson prior to trial the defendant had requested production of the tangible evidence in order that it might be examined and analyzed by a defense expert. The present case is unlike Johnson in that it does not appear that appellant at any time requested the production of, or indicated a desire to inspect or examine, the tangible evidence. In these circumstances the inadmissibility of the tangible evidence itself does not abridge appellant’s “right to a full and complete cross-examination” of the state’s expert, and this witness was properly allowed to testify regarding the laboratory testing of the substance.
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
ERVIN and SHIVERS, JJ., concur. . See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(a)(l)(vi) and (xi).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holt v. State, 422 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…thout merit because sufficient facts to form the basis of the hypothetical question were established later in the trial. It also was not error for the trial court to refuse to charge the jury separately on circumstantial evidence. Walker v. State, 414 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). There was no reversible error in the imposition of costs. Jenkins v. State, 422 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). AFFIRMED. BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Carlton Barnes v. State, 426 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…and possession of burglary tools. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Barnes argues that the old instruction on circumstantial evidence should have been given. This instruction was found unnecessary by the Florida Supreme Court. Walker v. State, 414 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Because no other error in the conviction for possession of burglary tools appears, it is affirmed. Although Barnes was caught on the victim’s porch actually prying at her door, we are forced to reverse the burglary conviction.…
-
Luciano Morra v. State, 467 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…“best evidence.” Appellant could have, but did not, request production of the evidence or indicate a desire to inspect or examine the evidence, and no claim is made that his right to cross-examine the State’s chemist was abridged. Maddox v. State, 414 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), which was decided two months before G.E.G., affirmed a conviction even though the substance was excluded from evidence because a post-analysis chain of custody could not be satisfactorily established. It was found significant th…
Authorities Cited
- Sher v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 249 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Zebedee Johnson v. State, 249 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- In the Interest of G. E. G. v. State, 389 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)