Case Name: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Mark CLARK and Bobby Stokes, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-01-31
Citations: 538 So. 2d 500
Docket Number: Nos. 88-256, 88-290
Parties: The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Mark CLARK and Bobby Stokes, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 538
Pages: 500–502

Head Matter:
The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Mark CLARK and Bobby Stokes, Appellees.
Nos. 88-256, 88-290.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 31, 1989.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Yvette Rhodes Prescott and Ivy Ginsberg, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The state challenges the trial court's reduction of charges of trafficking in heroin to charges of possession of heroin. The trial court's order declared that the state violated defendants' due process rights when the state's chemist commingled the contents of tested capsules with the contents of untested capsules, thereby preventing defendants from analyzing the remainder of the untested capsules. The state's chemist randomly tested capsules contained in separate packages in Stokes' case and in a single bag in Clark's case. Each tested capsule contained heroin, but the total weight of the tested substance was less than the required statutory amount. The chemist then commingled the contents of the capsules taken from each package prior to weighing, and concluded that the mixture contained enough heroin to violate section 893.135(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1985).
In Ross v. State, 528 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 537 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1988), this court held that random testing of suspect controlled substances is permissible if samples from each packet are tested. The Ross court drew a distinction between cocaine powder wrapped in separate packets and pills, stating:
[Cjaselaw which allows random positive testing of one suspect illegal pill commingled in a single packet containing other similar looking pills . as proof that the entire packet or bag contains illegal pills . is totally distinguishable from the random testing of only one of many separately wrapped packets of suspect cocaine.
Ross, 528 So.2d at 1240 (citations omitted). As we stated in Bond v. State, 538 So.2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), "the gravamen of Ross was its recognition that a variety of powdery white substances resemble cocaine in powder form." Ross, 528 So.2d at 1239 ("[A] visual examination of untested packets of this weight is insufficient to convict because the white powder contained therein may be milk sugar or any one of the vast variety of other white powdery chemical compounds not containing cocaine."). Capsules containing a powdery white substance are not distinguishable from the plastic packets in Ross. Ross requires that the chemist test samples from each of the capsules and that the total weight of the randomly tested material equal or exceed four grams. See § 893.135(1)(c), Fla.Stat. (1985). The testing method employed by the chemist did not follow the dictates of Ross, and the trial court's reduction of the charge was proper.
AFFIRMED.
BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ., concur.