Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Dearth v. State

Dearth v. State

334 So. 2d 354, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15731
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 7, 1976·No. Nos. V-459, W-28 and W-216·Published

Opinion

BY THE COURT.

Dearth was convicted of unlawful possession of a central nervous system stimulant. Craighead was convicted of unlawful possession of more than five grams of marijuana. Boccumini was convicted of unlawful delivery of marijuana.

These defendants appeal from the judgments of conviction and sentences, urging that the trial court erred as follows:

1. By denying motions to suppress filed by Dearth and Craighead. We do not agree. Mahoney v. State, 300 So.2d 743 (Fla.App. 1st, 1974).

2. By denying motions to exclude testimony of witness D’Allesandro filed by Dearth and Craighead. We do not agree. Spencer v. State, 133 So.2d 729 (Fla.1961).

3. By excluding the testimony of an expert witness pertaining to the polytypic nature of cannabis. We do not agree. Fotianos v. State, Fla.App. 1st, 329 So.2d 397, opinion filed April 1, 1976.

The judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

MILLS, Acting C. J., SMITH, J., and AGNER, ROYCE, Associate Judge, concur.

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

Dearth v. State, 334 So. 2d 354, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15731 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

334 So. 2d 354 (Dearth v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fotianos v. State
329 So. 2d 397 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Mahoney v. State
300 So. 2d 743 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
Spencer v. State
133 So. 2d 729 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1961)