J. G. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J. G. v. State

685 So. 2d 1385, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 115, 1997 WL 7159

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 10, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1565

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 685 So. 2d 1385 (J. G. 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

J. G. v. State, 685 So. 2d 1385, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 115, 1997 WL 7159 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, Judge.

The issue in this case is whether the court erred in admitting urine test reports under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. We find no error and affirm.

J.G. was charged with violating the terms of her community control by testing positive for drugs based on a urinalysis test. Veronica Wright, a substance abuse counselor at the CAPS program for Stewart-Marchman, an addiction treatment center, testified that as part of her job she administers random urine tests to the youths involved with the program. Ms. Wright testified that she prepared the paperwork for the test, distributed the cup for the sample, was present and witnessed J.G. give the sample, and personally took the sample to the lab for testing. The record suggests that the lab that did the analysis was also a part of Stewart March-man. The lab analysis report showing the presence of drugs was returned to her. She kept the report in the normal course of business and produced it at the hearing on the violation. This, we believe, complies with section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

HARRIS, Judge.

The issue in this case is whether the court erred in admitting urine test reports under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. We find no error and affirm.

J.G. was charged with violating the terms of her community control by testing positive for drugs based on a urinalysis test. Veronica Wright, a substance abuse counselor at the CAPS program for Stewart-Marchman, an addiction treatment center, testified that as part of her job she administers random urine tests to the youths involved with the program. Ms. Wright testified that she prepared the paperwork for the test, distributed the cup for the sample, was present and witnessed J.G. give the sample, and personally took the sample to the lab for testing. The record suggests that the lab that did the analysis was also a part of Stewart March-man. The lab analysis report showing the presence of drugs was returned to her. She kept the report in the normal course of business and produced it at the hearing on the violation. This, we believe, complies with section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 So. 2d 1385, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 115, 1997 WL 7159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-g-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack