KEVIN DAVIS, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed revocation of probation based on sufficient evidence of marijuana possession, finding the officer's testimony regarding discovery of the drug was not hearsay because he was present at the arrest and search.
An officer's testimony regarding marijuana discovered during a search incident to arrest is not hearsay when the officer was present at the discovery, providing sufficient evidence to support probation revocation.
[1] An officer's direct testimony regarding the discovery and field testing of marijuana during a search incident to arrest constitutes non-hearsay evidence sufficient to sup…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKevin Davis was arrested and a search incident to arrest revealed a bag of marijuana that tested positive; Davis challenged the sufficiency of evidenc…
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 Possession Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
Appellant, Kevin Davis, appeals the trial court’s order revoking probation. The court found violations for both committing burglary of a dwelling and possession of marijuana. Davis argues the evidence presented was insufficient to connect him to the burglary, and the state failed to provide non-hearsay evidence that the marijuana came from him. With respect to the possession of marijuana claim, an officer testified that he was present when Davis was apprehended and arrested. A search incident to arrest revealed a bag of suspect marijuana, which was then field tested by the testifying officer and came back positive as marijuana. Our reading of the record convinces us that the officer was present when the marijuana was discovered. Therefore, his testimony was not hearsay as to the discovery of marijuana. Because the record discloses sufficient evidence that Davis violated his probation by possession of marijuana, we need not address Davis’ other claim. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 478 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Randolph v. State, 292 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The trial court made it abundantly clear that possession of marijuana alone was sufficient to revoke Davis’ probation.
Affirmed.
GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Randolph v. State, 292 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Davis v. State, 478 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)