J. G., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Business Records Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
The issue in this case is whether the court erred in admitting urine test reports under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. We find no error and affirm.
J.G. was charged with violating the terms of her community control by testing positive for drugs based on a urinalysis test. Veronica Wright, a substance abuse counselor at the CAPS program for Stewart-Marchman, an addiction treatment center, testified that as part of her job she administers random urine tests to the youths involved with the program. Ms. Wright testified that she prepared the paperwork for the test, distributed the cup for the sample, was present and witnessed J.G. give the sample, and personally took the sample to the lab for testing. The record suggests that the lab that did the analysis was also a part of Stewart March-man. The lab analysis report showing the presence of drugs was returned to her. She kept the report in the normal course of business and produced it at the hearing on the violation. This, we believe, complies with section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Seraphin, 818 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2002)…ur sister courts, see State v. Rajaee, 745 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), and Johnson v. State, 760 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), we have consistently held that the trial court’s compliance with rule 3.172(c)(8) is mandatory. See Sanders v. State, 685 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (rejecting state’s argument that defendant invited error by falsely stating he was United States citizen and reversing denial of motion for postconviction relief with directions to allow defendant to withdraw plea); see also Grif…
-
Khalid Elharda v. State, 775 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…e response, “the Court had every reason to rely upon the representation given under oath by [him].” We disagree with the trial court’s analysis under the circumstances of this case and adopt the rationale of the Fourth District in Sanders v. State, 685 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), in which a similar “invited error” argument based on a false response to a trial court’s “limited inquiry regarding [the defendant’s] citizenship” was rejected. The Sanders court stated, and we agree, “[compliance with rule 3.17…
-
Seraphin v. State, 785 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…er courts, see State v. Rajaee, 745 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 5th [*610] DCA 1999), and Johnson v. State, 760 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), we have consistently held that the trial court’s compliance with rule 3.172(c)(8) is mandatory. See Sanders v. State, 685 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (rejecting state’s argument that defendant invited error by falsely stating he was United States citizen and reversing denial of motion for postconviction relief with directions to allow defendant to withdraw plea); see also Grif…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence