Cridland v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cridland v. State

693 So. 2d 720, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5591, 1997 WL 269327

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 21, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2247

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 693 So. 2d 720 (Cridland v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cridland v. State, 693 So. 2d 720, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5591, 1997 WL 269327 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver. For the following reasons, we reverse.

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized, as the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody. “As a general rule, the state is not required to elicit testimony from every custodian in the chain. Relevant physical evidence is admissible unless there is some indication of probable tampering with the evidence.” Dodd v. State, 537 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In this case, the State failed to present testimony from two witnesses who were critical links in the chain of custody. In light of the conflicting evidence as to the quantity of the cocaine seized, the State failed to prove that the cocaine seized and the cocaine introduced at trial were one and the same.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver. For the following reasons, we reverse.

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized, as the State failed to establish a proper chain of custody. “As a general rule, the state is not required to elicit testimony from every custodian in the chain. Relevant physical evidence is admissible unless there is some indication of probable tampering with the evidence.” Dodd v. State, 537 So.2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In this case, the State failed to present testimony from two witnesses who were critical links in the chain of custody. In light of the conflicting evidence as to the quantity of the cocaine seized, the State failed to prove that the cocaine seized and the cocaine introduced at trial were one and the same.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 So. 2d 720, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5591, 1997 WL 269327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cridland-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack