T.E.D., III, A CHILD, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• M.M. v. State, 152 So. 3d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
  …packaging). The officers testified about the existence of the pipe and about the residue inside the pipe, but they failed to positively identify that residue as a controlled substance. See Goodroe, 812 So. 2d at 587; see also T.E.D., III v. State, 627 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (finding evidence insufficient to prove possession, as the “alleged paraphernalia tested negative for any controlled substance and the record is devoid of any evidence that appellant possessed it with intent to use it for the ill…
• Chandler v. State, 185 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
  …561 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)). However, if the alleged paraphernalia tests negative for drug residue, the State must introduce other evidence to demonstrate possession of the item with intent to use it for an illicit purpose. T.E.D. v. State, 627 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Here, the officers neither testified that the dollar bill contain,ed residue nor tested the dollar bill for the same. The [*1288] officers’ testimony that drug users commonly use rolled-up bills to inhale narcotics does not suf…
• Nixon v. State, 680 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
  …ug paraphernalia tested negative for drug residue and the record was devoid of other evidence that appellant possessed the item with intent to use it for an illegal purpose, a violation of section 893.147(1) was not established, see T.E.D. v. State, 627 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Under the present circumstances, there was insufficient evidence of intent to use the items for an illicit purpose. See also Williams v. State, 529 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). AFFIRMED in part REVERSED in part and REMANDED…