MARSHALL BROOKS, 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.
Marshall Brooks appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, challenging the admission of expert testimony by an arresting officer regarding drug packaging. The Florida appellate court affirms the conviction, holding that properly trained law enforcement officers may offer expert opinions on whether drugs are packaged for sale versus personal use.
The court held that it is proper for an appropriately trained and experienced law enforcement officer to offer expert opinion concerning the packaging of drugs for sale versus personal use, and the trial court did not err in admitting Officer Wright's testimony on this subject.
[1] An appropriately trained and experienced law enforcement officer may offer expert opinion testimony regarding the packaging of drugs for sale versus personal use.
[2] A law enforcement officer with extensive experience in narcotics and drug arrests may be qualified as an expert witness on the packaging of drugs.
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“It is proper for an appropriately trained and experienced law enforcement officer to offer expert opinion concerning packaging of drugs for sale versus personal use.”
Establishes the core holding that law enforcement experts may testify regarding drug packaging practices
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 24, 1996, Officers Wright and Pierce observed Brooks at a street intersection. When Brooks noticed the officers, he removed twelve small plast…
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 Expert Witness Qualification cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.
Marshall Brooks [“Brooks”] appeals a final order adjudicating him guilty of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine. He contends the lower court erred in allowing the arresting officer to offer an expert opinion that the cocaine found in Brooks’ possession was packaged for sale, not personal use. We affirm.
At trial, Officer Wright of the Orlando Police Department testified that he and his partner, Officer Pierce, observed Brooks approach the intersection of Gore Street and Ivy Lane on June 24, 1996, at approximately 7:40 p.m. After noticing the officers, Brooks removed several small objects from his right front pocket and tossed them close to a parked vehicle. Officer Wright immediately retrieved the objects, which turned out to be twelve small plastic zip-lock bags, each containing approximately $5.00 worth of crack cocaine. A search incident to arrest also produced from Brooks’ front right change pocket an empty large zip-lock bag and $297.00 in cash.
Officer Wright testified that he had been an officer with the Orlando Police Department for six years and an undercover agent in the narcotics division for the last three. He had received training in the identification and packaging of crack cocaine, as well as surveillance of possible drug dealers. He testified that he had personally arrested over 200 drug dealers and had assisted in an additional three to four hundred arrests. Additionally, Officer Wright testified that he had arrested over a hundred “simple drug users of crack cocaine.” The court accepted Officer Wright as an expert witness, oyer defense objection, but informed counsel that Wright would not be allowed to testify regarding Brooks’ intent to sell the cocaine.
Officer Wright testified that crack cocaine is generally packaged by size and dollar value in zip-lock bags for ease of sale. According to Wright, bags sell for between $5.00 and $80.00 or more. Wright also testified that a user would typically carry one or two pieces of crack, whereas a dealer would generally carry a larger supply. Wright testified that, in his opinion, the cocaine found on June 24, 1996 was packaged for sale and not for personal use. It is proper for an appropriately trained and experienced law enforcement officer to offer expert opinion concerning packaging of drugs for sale versus personal use.1 Bruce v. State, 616 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); K.M. v. State, 545 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); cf. C.L.L. v. State, 566 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We find no error in the admission of this testimony.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur. . In Gamble v. State, 644 So. 2d 1376, 1377 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), this court held that the narcotics agent in that case exceeded the limitations of expert testimony and invaded the province of the jury when he testified that the forty pieces of crack cocaine in a baggie found near Gamble in a patrol car were intended by him for sale. Id. In his special concurring opinion, Judge Peterson noted that testimony regarding the habits of drug users and sellers would have been helpful to the jury, but in that case, no such evidence had been presented to the jury before the state elicited the expert's inadmissible opinion. Id. at 1378-79. This case is unlike Gamble.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lewis v. State, 754 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…fy regarding whether quantity and packaging of drugs indicated intent to sell, where such information was not within common knowledge of jurors and purpose of testimony was not to present prejudicial, misleading inferences to jury); Brooks v. State, 700 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (arresting officer, who was experienced in narcotics investigations and arrests, could properly testify as expert witness regarding packaging practices of drug dealers and users and the amounts of drugs typically carried by each…
-
Pinder v. State, 723 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Brooks v. State, 700 So. 2d 473, 474 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(properly trained and experienced officer can offer expert opinion on “packaging of drugs for sale [*935] versus personal use” where the search of Brooks produced $297 in cash).…
-
Torrie Spry v. State, 946 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…whether quantity and packaging of drugs indicated intent to sell, where such information was not within common knowledge of jurors and purpose of testimony was not to present prejudi [*632] cial, misleading inferences to jury); and Brooks v. State, 700 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (finding arresting officer, who was experienced in narcotics investigations and arrests, could properly testify as expert witness regarding packaging practices of drug dealers and users and the amounts of drugs typically carried…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bruce v. State, 616 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- K.M. v. State, 545 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Antwain Gamble v. State, 644 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- C.L.L. v. State, 566 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)