FRED A. FREDERIKSEN, 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.
Frederiksen appeals his conviction for possession of heroin, challenging the admission of evidence and testimony regarding a collateral theft. The Florida appellate court affirms, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting the heroin packets and holding that testimony about the theft was properly admitted as part of the same sequence of events.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the heroin packets were properly admitted because the State established continuous possession from seizure to trial and adequately explained the apparent discrepancies, and that testimony about the theft was properly admitted as part of the same sequence of events necessary to give a complete account of the charged crime.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of contraband when the State establishes continuous possession from seizure to introduction and adequate…
[2] Testimony concerning a collateral crime is admissible when it is part of the same sequence of events as the crime charged and is necessary for a complete and intelligent…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The State further established the continuous possession of the contraband from time it was seized by the arresting officers until it was introduced into evidence.”
Establishes that the unbroken chain of custody cured concerns about potential tampering with evidence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers arrested Frederiksen after he fled into a motel room when ordered to halt. The arrest followed a report from a delivery truck driver (…
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 Tampering With Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant, Fred A. Frederik-sen, seeks review of a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of the crime of possession of a controlled substance (heroin). A sentence of five years confinement in the state penitentiary followed. We affirm.
One of defendant’s contentions on appeal is that the trial court admitted into evidence over objection the packets of heroin.
Defendant Frederiksen argues that there was an indication of probable tampering with the heroin in that 56 packets of heroin were introduced into evidence at the time of trial whereas the arresting officers testified that they seized 57 packets thereof at the time of defendant’s arrest. Also, there was some seemingly inconsistent testimony as to the color of the heroin, white Or brown. Nevertheless, during the trial this color discrepancy was explained adequately by the prosecution. The State further established the continuous possession of the contraband from time it was seized by the arresting officers until it was introduced into evidence. We conclude, therefore, that there was no evidence of probable tampering with the heroin packets and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in permitting them to be admitted into evidence. Thus, this point of appellant must fail. See Stunson v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So. 2d 294; Stevens v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 245 So. 2d 92; Bernard v. State, Fla. App.1973, 275 So. 2d 34.
Defendant also urges as reversible error the admission of testimony concerning a collateral crime. We cannot agree.
This point is presented as a result of the testimony of Gary Brown, the driver of a delivery truck. Brown testified that he noticed two males following him as he stopped to make a delivery. Upon returning to his truck after making the delivery Brown noticed that two shoes boxes were missing. He called the police and gave the two investigating officers a description of the two males and indicated the direction in which they fled. The officers proceeded to a near-by motel and spotted the defendant, who met Brown’s description, walking toward them. The police officers ordered the defendant to halt. Instead, defendant turned and ran into the motel room where the officers apprehended him as he was pulling his hand out from under the bed mattress. One of the officers lifted the mattress and discovered a box containing several tin foil packets which later were identified as containing heroin. The theft of the shoe boxes had a connection with the crime for which defendant Fred-eriksen was being tried as the two crimes were part of the same sequence of events and the testimony with respect to the theft, as admitted, was necessary to give a complete and intelligent account of the crime charged. See Horner v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 149 So. 2d 863; Feldman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 21. In addition, we examined defendant’s remaining point on appeal in light of controlling principle of law and have determined that no reversible error has been made to appear. For the reasons cited hereinabove, the judgment and conviction appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peek v. State, 395 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1980)…hat the samples were from Anthony Ray Peek. The bags 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 permittin…
-
Winchell v. State, 362 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…seized were commingled at the time of trial thus indicating 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 rec…
-
Clark v. State, 337 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…the crimes for which he was being prosecuted. Moreover, it was necessary that the fact of appellant’s arrest be explained in order that an intelligent account of the circumstances of his making the statement could be given. Cf. Frederiksen v. State, 312 So. 2d 217 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). If the officer had only referred to the fact of placing appellant under arrest, we would have no qualms about the judgment. However, his gratuitous statement that he [*860] had arrested appellant for sale and possession of heroin…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stunson v. State, 228 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Horner v. State, 149 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Steinc v. State, 275 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Feldman v. State, 212 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Stevens v. State, 245 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)