Valenzuela v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Valenzuela v. State

426 So. 2d 1294, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18723

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 22, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1163

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 426 So. 2d 1294 (Valenzuela 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

Valenzuela v. State, 426 So. 2d 1294, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18723 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The fact that the police returned to its owner a Jartran rental truck driven by and seized from the defendant did not, as the defendant suggests, constitute a failure to preserve evidence, entitling the defendant to a dismissal of the charges. First, the defendant was provided with the identification number of the truck and with the exertion of any effort could have located and examined the very truck. Second, in that the defendant’s avowed purpose in examining the truck was to aid him in cross-examining a police officer as to the officer’s ability to detect the odor of marijuana in the padlocked portion of the truck, other substantially identical Jartran trucks were available for that purpose. Thus, even if it could be said that the evidence was not preserved, the defendant was not prejudiced thereby, and the extreme sanction of dismissal was inappropriate. State v. Sobel, 363 So.2d 324 (Fla.1978). The defendant’s other point on appeal is equally without merit.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The fact that the police returned to its owner a Jartran rental truck driven by and seized from the defendant did not, as the defendant suggests, constitute a failure to preserve evidence, entitling the defendant to a dismissal of the charges. First, the defendant was provided with the identification number of the truck and with the exertion of any effort could have located and examined the very truck. Second, in that the defendant’s avowed purpose in examining the truck was to aid him in cross-examining a police officer as to the officer’s ability to detect the odor of marijuana in the padlocked portion of the truck, other substantially identical Jartran trucks were available for that purpose. Thus, even if it could be said that the evidence was not preserved, the defendant was not prejudiced thereby, and the extreme sanction of dismissal was inappropriate. State v. Sobel, 363 So.2d 324 (Fla.1978). The defendant’s other point on appeal is equally without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 So. 2d 1294, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valenzuela-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack