MELVIN COVINGTON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
In this criminal appeal, the court addresses whether drugs seized during an undercover operation should be excluded due to a chain-of-custody irregularity. The trial court denied Covington's motion in limine to exclude the drugs, which had been assigned the same computer-generated evidence number due to human error, later corrected by hand. The court affirmed the denial, holding that absent evidence or probability of tampering, a chain-of-custody irregularity does not warrant exclusion.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion in limine. To exclude evidence due to a gap or irregularity in the chain of custody, the defendant must demonstrate a probability of tampering. Since Covington failed to establish any probability of tampering, the trial court properly denied the motion.
[1] A party seeking to exclude evidence due to an irregularity in the chain of custody must demonstrate a probability of tampering.
[2] Human error in assigning duplicate evidence numbers, subsequently corrected by handwriting the proper number, does not, without more, establish a probability of tampering…
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“To support the exclusion of evidence due to a gap or as in this case, an irregularity in the chain of custody, Covington must demonstrate a probability of tampering.”
Establishes the legal standard for chain-of-custody exclusions—the defendant must show probability of tampering, not merely an irregularity.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrack cocaine was seized on two separate days during an undercover drug operation and turned into the Lake County Sheriff's Office evidence room. Due …
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
COHEN, J.
The sole issue raised in this appeal was the trial court’s denial of a motion in limine seeking to exclude drugs seized during an undercover drug operation.1 FDLE, who tested the drugs, provided their own unique numbers on each separate submission.2 Below, Covington correctly acknowledged there was no evidence of tampering. To support the exclusion of evidence due to a gap or as in this case, an irregularity in the chain of custody, Covington must demonstrate a probability of tampering. Armstrong v. State, 73 So. 3d 155, 171-72 (Fla. 2011). Having failed to do so, the trial court properly denied the motion in limine. AFFIRMED. NARDELLA, J., and SASSO, M.L., Associate Judge, concur.1 This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 3, 2023.
Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.