KEITH VALJENE STUNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 admission of evidence was proper and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
Appellant was convicted of unlawful possession and sale of marijuana after a nonjury trial. He appealed, challenging the admission of marijuana eviden…
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 Unlawful Sale Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks review of his conviction, pursuant to a nonjury trial finding him guilty of unlawful possession and sale of marijuana. The appellant has preserved two points on appeal: (1) Alleged error in the admission into evidence of two matchboxes of marijuana, when the State failed to establish by live witnesses the continuous possession of the contraband from the time of its sale until the time of its introduction into evidence. (2) The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. We affirm.
It is true that the record fails to reveal evidence by live witnesses as to who had in their possession or control the contraband involved from the time of its sale until the time of its introduction into evidence. However, it appears from the authorities cited that the test is whether or not there is an indication of probable tampering with the evidence. In this connection, see the following: Gallego v. United States, Ct. of App. 9th Cir. 1960, 276 F.2d 914; State v. Anderson, 242 Or. 368, 409 P.2d 681. It is clear from the record that the whereabouts of the contraband was fully explained at all times from the incident of the sale until introduction into evidence. The continuous whereabouts of the contraband was amply supported by the State’s witnesses and it was within the power of the trial judge to permit it into evidence. State v. Robinson, 203 Kan. 304, 454 P.2d 527; Oliver v. State, S.Ct.Nev.1969, 449 P.2d 252; Hilliard v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 290, 340 S.W.2d 494.
As to the sufficiency of the evidence, a review of the record reveals substantial competent evidence which, together with the reasonable inferences therefrom, were sufficient to support the conviction on the charges as made. Therefore, it should be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (36 total)
-
Peek v. State, 395 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1980)…did not appear to have been “opened, tampered with, or in any way adulterated.” Relevant physical evidence is admissible unless there is an indication of probable tampering. Frederiksen v. State, 312 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Stunson v. State, 228 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Accord, United States v. Daughtry, 502 F. 2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1974). The record here reflects no hint of tampering, thus the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in permitting the introduction of the hair comparison analysis.…
-
Winchell v. State, 362 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ing probable tampering with the evidence. Our review of the record shows this point to also be meritless. See, e. g., Wingert v. State, 353 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Frederiksen v. State, 312 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); and Stunson v. State, 228 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Appellant’s first and third points on appeal raise, basically, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to uphold the jury verdict. In our opinion, based on the record of this cause, there was nothing improper in the poli…
-
Monserrate v. State, 232 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…t was to defending against the sale charge. Since it may be an issue upon retrial we expressly hold that the chain of custody of • the physical exhibit was sufficiently estab [*446] lished to comply with the rule in Stunson v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 228 So. 2d 294. Appellant’s point urging reversal because of a formal deficiency in the information does not present error. See rule 1.140(c), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. The point directed to the admission into evidence of the physical exhibit…
Previewing 3 of 36 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gallego v. United States, 276 F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1960)