RICHARD BERNARD, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Chain Of Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals his conviction for violation of § 398.03 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the uniform narcotic drug law, for which he was sentenced to eighteen months, less jail time served. On consideration of the record, briefs, and argument, we hold no .reversible error has been shown.
The appellant claims it was error to admit the narcotic drug into evidence over defendant’s objection, contending the state failed to establish the continuous possession of the contraband from the time of its purchase by the undercover police officer until it was offered in evidence. That position of the appellant is not supported by the record. The test is whether or not there was indication of probable tampering with the evidence. In the circumstances shown the evidence was admissible. Stunson v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 294; Stevens v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 92. Appellant’s contention of insufficiency of the evidence is without merit. The record reveals there was substantial competent evidence to support the judgment.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beasley v. State, 18 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 2009)…nsel does not act unreasonably in not pursuing them. See Reed v. State, 875 So. 2d 415, 432 (Fla.2004). A motion to exclude the shirt based on a break in the chain of custody required specific allegations of probable tampering. See Bernard v. State, 275 So. 2d 34, 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Trial counsel testified that there was no indication of tampering, and the defense team did not believe that they possessed a basis to exclude the shirt. Postconviction counsel has alluded to a discrepancy between when the sh…
Authorities Cited
- Stunson v. State, 228 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Stevens v. State, 245 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)