CONNIE NEINER, 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.
Connie Neiner was convicted of possessing Valium found in her purse. The court reversed her conviction because the trial court improperly excluded evidence explaining why she could not produce a prescription to support her defense that she had legally obtained the drug.
The trial court erred in excluding the evidence. Where evidence tends in any way to establish a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, it is error to deny its admission. The Walgreens policy evidence was relevant because it explained why the defendant could not produce the 1993 prescription on which her entire defense relied.
[1] Evidence explaining why a defendant cannot produce corroborating documentation for their defense is relevant to establishing reasonable doubt.
[2] A defendant's inability to produce a prescription for a controlled substance may be explained by evidence of a business's policy to destroy such records after a statutory…
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 intelligence“Where evidence tends in any way, even indirectly, to establish a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt, it is error to deny its admission.”
Establishes the legal standard for admitting defense evidence and shows that relevance to reasonable doubt receives special consideration
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter Neiner's arrest for DUI, a Valium-containing baggie was discovered during an inventory of her purse at a breath alcohol testing facility. Neiner…
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 Right To Present Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant was convicted of possession of Diazepam (Valium), after it was discovered in her purse. We reverse for a new trial because the court erred in excluding evidence relevant to her defense that she had a prescription for the drug.
After appellant was arrested for DUI and transported to the breath alcohol testing facility, an employee at the facility doing an inventory of her purse discovered a plastic baggie containing ten solid Valium pills and seven pieces. Appellant gave a statement to the effect that she had obtained the Valium through a prescription in 1993. The appellant had provided the state with a 1996 Walgreens prescription; however, the strength of the Valium in that prescription was different from that of the Valium in her purse.
As part of defendant’s case, and in response to the state’s introduction of her statement that she had a prescription in 1993, appellant called a former manager of a Walgreens store to testify that company policy required Walgreens to destroy prescription records after five years.
The trial court excluded this, evidence on the ground that the witness was not a business records custodian qualified to testify under section 90.803(7), Florida Statutes, as to the “absence of entry in records of regularly conducted activity.” Appellant was not, however, attempting to show absence under this statute of “a regularly conducted activity to prove the nonoccurrence or nonexistence of the matter.” Rather, appellant wished to show why Walgreens’ records would not corroborate her'defense that she had a prescription.
The witness proffered that he became employed as a manager by Walgreens in 1996 or 1997, and at that time there was a corporate policy requiring prescription records to be destroyed after five years. If Walgreens had filled a prescription for appellant in 1993, he explained, it would not be available because of that policy.
The state does not argue that the trial court’s reasoning in excluding this evidence was correct, but contends that it was not relevant, and there was no abuse of discretion. Although some evidentiary rulings are reviewed under that standard, Jenkins v. State, 719 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), “the question of what is relevant to show a reasonable doubt may present different considerations than the question of what is relevant to show the commission of the crime itself.” Vannier v. State, 714 So. 2d 470, 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). “Where evidence tends in any way, even indirectly, to establish a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt, it is error to deny its admission.” Rivera v. State, 561 So. 2d 536, 539 (Fla.1990).
Chambers v. Mississippi 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) (“[flew rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense.”).
Appellant’s entire defense in this case was that she obtained the Valium through a prescription from Walgreens. If she had been able to produce the prescription she would not have been charged, let alone found guilty. The fact that Walgreens would have destroyed any record of this prescription was relevant to her defense in that it explained why she could not produce a copy of the prescription. The state’s argument that Walgreens’s policy was not relevant is undermined by the fact that the state, in closing argument, pointed out that the appellant did not produce a prescription. Reversed.
WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reynolds v. State, 934 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 2006)…s raised in this direct appeal, we affirm the judgment and sentences of death. It is so ordered. PARIENTE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. . Spencer v. State, 615 So. 2d 688 (Fla.1993). . Neiner v. State, 875 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), also cited by Reynolds in support of this claim, is likewise inapposite. The district court in Neiner merely held that the trial court incorrectly analyzed and excluded relevant evidence under the hearsay exception for the absen…
-
O'Hara v. State, 964 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…t acknowledges that section 893.13(6)(a) provides a prescription defense to possession of controlled substances, but it contends that the defense does not apply to a defendant who is charged with possessing a trafficking amount. Cf. Neiner v. State, 875 So. 2d 699, 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (discussing prescription defense in a case involving possession of a controlled substance that is not included in the trafficking statute). As we will discuss, the State is mistaken on both points. We begin with section 499…
-
Wagner v. State, 921 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…The trial court must protect that right when considering whether to exclude evidence. Id. at 296. Although some evidentiary rulings are reviewed under the relevancy standard, other considerations must also be taken into account. See Neiner v. State, 875 So. 2d 699, 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). What is relevant to show a reasonable doubt may differ from what is relevant to show the commission of the crime itself. Id. (citing Vannier v. State, 714 So. 2d 470, 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). “Where evidence tends in any w…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1973)
- Rivera v. State, 561 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1990)
- Vannier v. State, 714 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Jenkins v. State, 719 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)