Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Jose ALVARINO and Thomas Esquiroza, Respondents
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-09-10
Citations: 585 So. 2d 1094
Docket Number: No. 91-1938
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Jose ALVARINO and Thomas Esquiroza, Respondents.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and COPE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 585
Pages: 1094–1095

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Jose ALVARINO and Thomas Esquiroza, Respondents.
No. 91-1938.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 10, 1991.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Carol J.Y. Wilson, Asst. Public Defender, for respondents.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and COPE, JJ.

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.