OTIS K. HAYES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This matter is before us after an Order below was entered revoking the Appellant’s probation.
It was alleged the Appellant violated the terms of his probation by violating the law — possessing heroin.
The standard of proof in a probation violation hearing is different than that at trial. Laboratory reports are admissable without the chemist’s testimony. Singletary v. State, 290 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). The Appellant’s urging that the revocation was based on hearsay is not borne out by the transcript of testimony. The officers saw the Appellant purchase the foil packets, searched the Appellant and seized the packets, ran a positive presumptive test on the contents of the packet and had the presumption confirmed by a lab report from a chemist. The court was eminently correct in revoking the Appellant’s probation.
AFFIRMED.
ALDERMAN, J., concurs.
MAGER, C. J., concurs in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bernhine W. Young v. State, 519 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…on clearly lacks merit. The trial court was entitled to judicially note Young’s probationary status. See § 90.202, Fla.Stat. (1985). The lab reports were admissible at a probation revocation hearing without a chemist’s testimony. See Hayes v. State, 345 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Randolph v. State, 292 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 300 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1974); Singletary v. State, 290 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 293 So. 2d 361 (Fla.1974). Moreover, there was also testimony of a p…
-
Williams v. State, 553 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…he category of hearsay, normally inadmissible in evidence at trial. This case is different from Young v. State, 519 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), quashed on other grounds, sub nom., Hamilton v. State, 548 So. 2d 234 (Fla.1989), and Hayes v. State, 345 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), because in those cases, in addition to the lab tests, police officers testified they made positive field tests on the illegal substances seized at the time of the arrests. The lab tests were not the only evidence of the violatio…
-
Isaac v. State, 971 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…n officer. No representative of the laboratory testified. Isaac is correct that the laboratory test in question (showing that Isaac was positive for cocaine) was hearsay, but in probation violation hearings such tests are admissible. Hayes v. State, 345 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Isaac is also correct that a violation may not be sustained solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. Weaver v. State, 543 So. 2d 443, 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (emphasis added). The trial court’s determination was not based exclu…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Singletary v. State, 290 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)