GEORGE CRIDLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tampering With Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver. For the following reasons, we reverse.
The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized, as the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody. “As a general rule, the state is not required to elicit testimony from every custodian in the chain. Relevant physical evidence is admissible unless there is some indication of probable tampering with the evidence.” Dodd v. State, 537 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In this case, the State failed to present testimony from two witnesses who were critical links in the chain of custody. In light of the conflicting evidence as to the quantity of the cocaine seized, the State failed to prove that the cocaine seized and the cocaine introduced at trial were one and the same.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. State, 721 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…trial court erred in admitting into evidence the cocaine contraband where there was a substantial weight discrepancy between the weight of the cocaine recovered by police officers and that introduced into evidence. As stated in Cridland v. State, 693 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), relevant physical evidence is admissible unless there is some indication of probable tampering with the evidence. Here, the cocaine turned in by arresting Officer Jacobson was identified as 10.5 grams. “[T]he envelope, the pill c…
Authorities Cited
- Dodd v. State, 537 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)