State v. Alvarino

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Alvarino

585 So. 2d 1094, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9261, 1991 WL 175840

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 10, 1991

DocketNo. 91-1938

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 585 So. 2d 1094 (State v. Alvarino) 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

State v. Alvarino, 585 So. 2d 1094, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9261, 1991 WL 175840 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Nothing in Everett v. State, 579 So.2d 394, 395 (Fla.3d DCA 1991), including the tangential reference to section 531.41(8), Florida Statutes (1989), creates or suggests a requirement that a measuring device used to determine that a drug sale took place less than one thousand feet from a school under section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989) must be previously calibrated or otherwise independently tested for accuracy. In fact, there is no such requirement. See St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 62 Ark. 254, 35 S.W. 225 (1896); 2 Wigmore on Evidence § 571 (Chadbourn rev. 1979) (distance proper subject of lay testimony); 7 Wigmore on Evidence § 1977, at 191 n. 2 (Chadbourn rev. 1978) (distance proper subject of expert testimony). Accordingly, the contrary order below, which excluded pertinent evidence on that basis, is quashed.

Certiorari granted.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Nothing in Everett v. State, 579 So.2d 394, 395 (Fla.3d DCA 1991), including the tangential reference to section 531.41(8), Florida Statutes (1989), creates or suggests a requirement that a measuring device used to determine that a drug sale took place less than one thousand feet from a school under section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989) must be previously calibrated or otherwise independently tested for accuracy. In fact, there is no such requirement. See St. Louis & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 62 Ark. 254, 35 S.W. 225 (1896); 2 Wigmore on Evidence § 571 (Chadbourn rev. 1979) (distance proper subject of lay testimony); 7 Wigmore on Evidence § 1977, at 191 n. 2 (Chadbourn rev. 1978) (distance proper subject of expert testimony). Accordingly, the contrary order below, which excluded pertinent evidence on that basis, is quashed.

Certiorari granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

585 So. 2d 1094, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9261, 1991 WL 175840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-alvarino-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack