J.S., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Juvenile's adjudication for cannabis possession is affirmed because officer identification by appearance and odor is sufficient without chemical testing, but the special condition requiring him to stay away from "negative peers" is remanded as unconstitutionally vague.
An officer with adequate narcotics experience may identify marijuana by appearance and odor without chemical testing, and the adjudication is affirmed, but the vague condition to avoid "negative peers" must be clarified on remand.
[1] An officer with adequate experience in the narcotics field may identify marijuana by its appearance and odor without chemical or scientific testing to support an adjudica…
[2] A special condition of community control requiring a juvenile to stay away from "negative peers" is unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.S., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for possession of a misdemeanor amount of cannabis. The trial court imposed a special condition of commun…
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 Community Control Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
J.S. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for the offense of possession of a misdemeanor amount of cannabis, and the special condition of community control imposed by the court that J.S. stay away from “negative peers.” We find unmeritorious defendant’s claim of error in his adjudication of delinquency. It is not necessary for the state to prove the identification of marijuana by chemical or scientific means. Pama v. State, 552 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); A.A. v. State, 461 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). An officer with adequate experience in the narcotics field and marijuana in particular, can identify a substance as marijuana by its appearance and odor. Id.
Thus, the fact that the substance was not tested does not preclude the instant adjudication. Also, the trial judge used his discretion in determining the two officers here could testify as experts, and no clear error as to that decision has been shown. See Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954, 960 (Fla.1996).
We agree, however, as the state concedes, the special condition of community control instructing J.S. to stay away from “negative peers”, is too vague to be enforceable.
Accordingly, the case is remanded for clarification of the term. See McCord v. State, 679 So. 2d 32, 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Thus, the adjudication of delinquency is affirmed, with the cause remanded for modification or clarification of the term “negative peers.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. State, 818 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…if it will assist the jury in determining a fact in issue. § 90.702, Fla. Stat. (2001). The courts generally agree that the identification of illegal drugs may be proven by expert witnesses. Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 879 (Fla.2000); J.S. v. State, 691 So. 2d 20, 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (citing Pama v. State, 552 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); A.A. v. State, 461 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)); State v. Raulerson, 403 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).1 Therefore, chemical or scientific testing is not necessary…
-
C.D. v. State, 277 So. 3d 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…umption against the retroactive application of substantive law—as distinct from procedural or remedial law-in the absence of a clear expression of legislative intent that the statute be given retroactive effect.”) (citations omitted); J.S. v. State, 691 So. 2d 20, 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“We find unmeritorious defendant's claim of error in his adjudication of delinquency. It is not necessary for the state to prove the identification of marijuana by chemical or scientific means.”) (citations omitted); A.A. v.…
-
J. P. v. State, 802 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. J.S. v. State, 691 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).…
Authorities Cited
- Terry v. State, 668 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1996)
- A.A. v. State, 461 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- LEE v. State, 552 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- McCORD v. State, 679 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)