Case ID: so2d_365/html/0171-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert L. WESTFALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. HH-110.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Sept. 27, 1978.
    On Rehearing Dec. 22, 1978.
    Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, for appellant.
    Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction for sale of phencyclidine (PGP). The state concedes that the chain of custody of the substance seized was not established and the substance itself was properly excluded at trial. The chain of possession from the law enforcement agents to the chemist was established, but the agents did not identify the particular envelope in which the substance taken from the defendant was placed and the chemist was given several envelopes at the same time. Further, the testimony at trial did not establish that all the envelopes delivered the same day contained phencyclidine. Thus, the testimony by the chemist cannot stand.

In this case, however, the law enforcement agents were allowed to testify that they performed a “field test” on the substance which tested positive for phency-clidine. There was no objection by the defendant to the qualifications of the agents or to the validity of the test. Therefore, this evidence stands unrefuted and was properly considered in ruling on a motion for a judgment of acquittal.

We, therefore, AFFIRM.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING GRANTED

PER CURIAM.

Upon reconsideration on petition for rehearing, we find, as we did in our previous opinion, that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to strike the chemist’s testimony. Even though we held in our previous opinion and reaffirm here that the positive “field test” for phencycli-dine stands unrefuted and was properly considered in the trial court’s ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal, we cannot say that the jury gave credence to such testimony. It may well have been that the jury based its verdict upon the testimony of the chemist which should have been excluded. Therefore, our previous affirmance is vacated, and this cause is reversed and remanded for new trial.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.