AKIWEE MOORE, 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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in finding a probation violation because the defendant failed to object to the admissibility of the field test results at trial.
[1] Evidence admitted without objection is generally considered by the trier of fact on the issue of its weight and reliability.
[2] A trial court's determination of the weight to be given to evidence is within its province and will not be re-weighed on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State charged Moore with violating probation by delivering cannabis to a minor. Officers witnessed the transaction and the minor subsequently hand…
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 Objection To Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*386] PALMER, J.
AMwee Moore appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation, contending that the evidence of record was insufficient to support a finding that he violated his probation. We affirm.
The State charged Moore with violating his probation by delivering cannabis to a minor. At the hearing, the arresting officers testified that they witnessed the delivery of an object from Moore to the minor and saw the minor try to redeliver it to Moore, but he refused. When the officers made their presence known to the minor, she became upset, started shaking and crying, and stated that she “can’t go to jail.” The minor then reached inside her shirt and handed the officer the two small baggies which Moore had just given to her. A Valtox field test identified the substance contained in the baggies as being cannabis.
Moore argues that he should not have been found guilty of violating his probation because the State failed to sustain its burden of proving that the substance contained in the baggies was cannabis. Although the officer should have testified concerning the nature of the Val-tox test, how it was performed, and his experience in administering the test; see Terry v. State, 777 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), Moore did not raise any objection to the admissibility of the officer’s testimony regarding the results of the field test, nor did he move to strike the officer’s testimony. He merely argued in closing that the officer’s cursory explanation that the test was administered was insufficient to establish its reliability. Once the testimony regarding the Valtox test results was admitted into evidence without objection there was no further issue as to its admissibility. Rather, the reliability of the test became an issue of weight to be given to the results. The weight to be given the evidence falls within the province of the trial court and this court will not re-weigh the evidence. See Brown v. State, 455 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
Judgment and Sentence AFFIRMED.
COBB and PLEUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Queior, 191 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 2016)…f entered the intersection”). Rather, in a VOP proceeding, the officer’s training and experience in administering field drug tests goes to the weight to be given to the officer’s testimony, which is an issue for the trial court. See Moore v. State, 788 So. 2d 385, 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“The weight to be given the evidence falls within the province of the trial court and this court will hot reweigh the evidence.”); ‘ see also Turner, 179 So. 3d at 527 (affirming trial court order revoking probation where p…
-
Q.G.W.M. v. State, 136 So. 3d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…only that the test results were unreliable because the results were not verified by an independent lab and that the probation officer failed to investigate whether Q.G.W.M.’s use of Tylenol could have interfered with the results. See Moore v. State, 788 So. 2d 385, 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding appellant failed to preserve issue of admissibility of officer’s testimony). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s finding that Q.G.W.M. violated his probation by using illegal drugs. Expulsion Q.G.W.M. argues th…
Authorities Cited
- Alvarez v. State, 777 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Brown v. State, 455 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)