ARNOLD ROY LONGSHAW, 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.
Arnold Roy Longshaw was convicted of possession and sale of a controlled substance based on testimony from an undercover agent and a police chemist. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, holding that the State failed to establish a sufficient chain of possession connecting the defendant to the packets of controlled substance analyzed by the chemist.
The conviction must be reversed because the chain of possession was not sufficiently established. The chemist's testimony regarding the contents of the packets could not sustain a conviction without a connection between the packets he analyzed and the defendant. The undercover agent could have testified to the nature of the substance if qualified as an expert, but he was not so qualified.
[1] A conviction for possession and sale of a controlled substance cannot be sustained when the State fails to establish a sufficient chain of possession for the alleged cont…
[2] Testimony regarding the chemical analysis of substances is insufficient to support a conviction if the analyzed substances are not directly connected to the defendant or…
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“The alleged packets of marijuana could not have been admitted into evidence because the chain of possession was not sufficiently established.”
Establishes the fundamental defect in the State's case—the failure to properly establish chain of custody for the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn undercover agent testified to purchasing four packets from the defendant, but did not describe their contents. The packets were marked for identifi…
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 Sale Of Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was charged in a two-count information with possession and sale of a controlled substance. At the time of trial an undercover agent testified to the purchase of four packets, the contents of which were not described. The packets were marked for identification. Thereafter, the State produced an expert on chemical analysis, who testified that he had examined four packets and they contained a controlled substance sufficient in quantity to warrant a felony prosecution. He did not identify the four packets as being the same ones referred to by the undercover officer in his testimony.
At the conclusion of the State’s case, defense counsel made a proper motion for acquittal, which motion was denied. Thereafter, the defendant put on a defense and, subsequent to the conclusion of all the evidence and further motions for acquittal, the trial judge (non-jury) found the appellant guilty as charged, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him accordingly. This appeal ensued. The principal point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying the motion for acquittal at the close of the State’s case.
The alleged packets of marijuana could not have been admitted into evidence because the chain of possession was not sufficiently established. Novak v. District of Columbia, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 160 F. 2d 588 (1947), compare Urga v. State, 155 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A.1963). Therefore, testimony as to the chemical analysis of the contents of the packets would not serve to sustain a conviction. The undercover agent could have established the nature of the substance, which he allegedly purchased from the defendant, had he been qualified as an expert in some fashion. However, he did not. Cali v. State, 111 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2nd D.C.A.1959); Koran v. State, 213 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A.1968); Salas v. State, 246 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A.1971).
In the State’s brief, it is conceded that the police chemist testified concerning the contents of the packets without directly connecting them to the undercover officer or the defendant. Without a' connection, however, there is nothing to establish a necessary link between the chemist’s testimony as to the contraband and the defendant.
Therefore, the conviction, adjudication, and sentence under review be and they are reversed with directions to discharge the appellant.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L. A. v. State, 369 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…from the truck. We hold that there was merit in the motion and that the motion for acquittal should have been granted. Carson v. State, 205 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Hornbrook v. State, 321 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DGA 1975), and Longshaw v. State, 343 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The order appealed is reversed with directions to discharge the appellant. Reversed and remanded with directions.…
Authorities Cited
- Diamante Urga v. State, 155 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Salas v. State, 246 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Mortimer Norman Koran v. State, 213 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Novak v. Dist. of Columbia, 160 F.2d 588 (D.C. Cir. 1947)
- Cali v. State, 111 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)