Brown v. State

744 So. 2d 1254, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15634, 1999 WL 1062507
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brown v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 689 So. 2d 1280
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 24, 1999·No. No. 98-2500·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding under Anders v. California in which the appellant has submitted a pro se brief and the State has filed an answer brief. Appellant first contends that his taped statement should have been suppressed because he had taken pain medication several hours before he gave it. The trial court rejected this claim after hearing testimony from the detective who took the statement, the appellant, and listening to the tape. We affirm on authority of Burns v. State, 584 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

Assuming appellant’s second point was properly preserved for appellate review, the trial court properly overruled the appellant’s objection to the admission of the bullet shell casing into evidence. The chain of custody was sufficiently established and there was no indication of prob[1255]*1255able tampering. See Dodd v. State, 537 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brown v. State, 744 So. 2d 1254, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15634, 1999 WL 1062507 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

744 So. 2d 1254 (Brown v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burns v. State
584 So. 2d 1073 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
Dodd v. State
537 So. 2d 626 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)