State v. Bissett

410 So. 2d 196, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19312
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 17, 1982
DocketNo. 81-588
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 410 So. 2d 196 (State v. Bissett) 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. Bissett, 410 So. 2d 196, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19312 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.

The state appeals from an order granting appellee’s motions to suppress, to impose sanctions and to dismiss. We reverse.

Appellee was arrested in April 1978, and charged with possession and delivery of cannabis and phencyclidine. His counsel withdrew in September of 1978. He then jumped bond and was not recaptured until 1981.

During appellee’s absence as a fugitive, the evidence was destroyed by the police pursuant to routine procedure for destroying contraband in older cases. Defense counsel, who appeared subsequent to appel-lee’s recapture, learned of the destruction of the evidence and moved to suppress testimony pertaining to the contraband, to impose sanctions on the state for the destruction of the evidence and to dismiss the information.

We agree with the holding in State v. James, 404 So.2d 1181 (Fla.2d DCA 1981), which involved substantially identical facts. There the court stated:

[T]he defendant by his escape delayed the trial for two years by which time the sheriff’s department, as part of its routine procedure, had destroyed the evidence. It was only after the case had been reset for trial and defense counsel knew of the destruction of the contraband that he requested production of that [197]*197evidence. While mere delay of a trial would not ordinarily excuse the destruction of crucial evidence, the fact that defense counsel had ample opportunity to test the contraband [prior to the initial trial date], combined with the delay unlawfully caused by the defendant, demonstrate that the defendant was not prejudiced by the destruction of the evidence.

We therefore REVERSE and REMAND for a new trial.

ORFINGER and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Del Gaudio
445 So. 2d 605 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
410 So. 2d 196, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bissett-fladistctapp-1982.