MELVIN L. MUNROE, 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.
Melvin Munroe challenges his conviction for tampering with physical evidence under Florida Statute § 918.13. The court reverses, holding that throwing contraband away from one's person while in plain sight of arresting officers does not constitute the statutory offense of tampering with evidence.
The court holds that Munroe's act of tossing the contraband away does not constitute tampering with physical evidence. The legislature did not intend the act of tossing away contraband at the scene of an arrest, in clear sight of law enforcement officers, to constitute the offense of tampering with physical evidence.
[1] Tossing contraband away from one's person in the presence of arresting officers, while in plain view, does not constitute concealment or removal of evidence for the purpo…
[2] The legislative intent of the tampering with evidence statute does not encompass the act of discarding contraband at the scene of an arrest when the act is performed in t…
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“a defendant's act of tossing contraband away from his person while in the presence of arresting officers did not constitute a concealment or removal of the evidence for the purpose of impairing its availability for criminal trial, as contemplated by the legislature in section 918.13”
Establishes the core legal principle that merely throwing contraband away does not meet the statutory definition of tampering with evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers observed Munroe standing in the street with another man examining a small white tube. When Munroe saw the officers, he walked away and…
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 Concealment Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
The appellant challenges his conviction and sentence for tampering with physical evidence on the ground that his actions did not constitute tampering within the meaning of section 918.13, Florida Statutes (1989). We reverse.
Following jury trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for possession of cocaine, tampering with physical evidence, resisting an officer with violence, and battery on a law enforcement officer. He challenges only the conviction and sentence for tampering with physical evidence.
At trial, the arresting officers testified that they observed the appellant standing in the street talking with another man while the man looked at a small white tube in the appellant’s hand. When the appellant observed the officers, he walked away and stuffed his hand down his pants. The officers stopped the appellant and told him what they had observed. During a patdown of the appellant, one of the officers retrieved the tube, which appeared to contain crack cocaine, from the appellant’s waistband. When the officer advised the appellant that he was under arrest, a struggle ensued and the officer lost his grip on the tube. The appellant grabbed the tube and threw it across the street. The tube and its contents, which tested positive for cocaine, were later retrieved by the officers.
Section 918.13 states:
(1) No person, knowing that a criminal trial or proceeding or an investigation by a duly constituted prosecuting authority, law enforcement agency, grand jury or legislative committee of this state is pending or is about to be instituted, shall: (a) Alter, destroy, conceal, or remove any record, document, or thing with the purpose to impair its verity or availability in such proceeding or investigation.
In Boice v. State, 560 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), this court held that a defendant’s act of tossing contraband away from his person while in the presence of arresting officers did not constitute a concealment or removal of the evidence for the purpose of impairing its availability for criminal trial, as contemplated by the legislature in section 918.13. See also Thomas v. State, 581 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Jones v. State, 590 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
The state attempts to distinguish these cases by noting that the appellant threw the tube across the street, approximately twenty to thirty feet away. The officers testified, however, that they were able to watch the tube from the time it left the appellant’s hand, until it impacted on the street. As noted in Boice, we do not believe the legislature intended the act of tossing away contraband at the scene of an arrest, in the clear sight of a law enforcement officer, to constitute the offense of tampering with physical evidence. 560 So. 2d at 1384. We therefore reverse the appellant’s conviction and sentence for tampering with physical evidence. Reversed.
HALL, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Darrel Jennings, 666 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1995)…In this case, the defendant did not conceal the cocaine. Although he removed the cocaine from his hand, he did not remove the cocaine from the immediate area of his interest. Mr. Boice merely abandoned the evidence. Id. at 1384. In Munroe v. State, 629 So. 2d 263, 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), Jones v. State, 590 So. 2d 982, 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Thomas v. State, 581 So. 2d 993, 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), the courts relied on Boice for the proposition that tossing evidence away in the presence of a law enforce…1 / 2
-
State v. Harper, 800 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…t the facts alleged in the information did not establish a prima facie case of guilt. To support his motion, Harper cited to Thomas v. State, 581 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), Jones v. State, 590 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Munroe v. State, 629 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), all of which cited to Boice v. State, 560 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) for the holding that the act of tossing drugs away in clear view of a law enforcement officer does not constitute the crime of tampering. The trial court gr…1 / 2
-
Chapman v. State, 36 So. 3d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…court concluded that swallowing an object constitutes altering, destroying, concealing, or removing a “thing” within the meaning of section 918.13, Florida Statutes. Id. In an effort to clarify the law, the high court explained: In Munroe v. State, 629 So. 2d 263, 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), Jones v. State, 590 So. 2d 982, 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Thomas v. State, 581 So. 2d 993, 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), the courts relied on Boxee for the proposition that tossing evidence away in the presence of a law enforce…
Authorities Cited
- Boice v. State, 560 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Thomas v. State, 581 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Jones v. State, 590 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)