Case Name: In the Interest of P. G. and G. G., Minors
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1973-07-03
Citations: 280 So. 2d 490
Docket Number: No. 73-47
Parties: In the Interest of P. G. and G. G., Minors.
Judges: Before PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Sr., Associate Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 280
Pages: 490–490

Head Matter:
In the Interest of P. G. and G. G., Minors.
No. 73-47.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 3, 1973.
Rehearing Denied July 30, 1973.
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and John Lipinski, Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.
Before PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Sr., Associate Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, who are minors, urge the insufficiency of the evidence to support the finding that they are delinquent because of their violation of Fla.Stat. § 877.11, F.S.A. (inhalation or possession of harmful chemical substances). Basically, the appellants argue that a finding of delinquency upon a charge of the violation of this statute requires a chemical analysis of the alleged "harmful chemical substance." We think that because of the evidence in the record of the intoxication of the minors, their conduct in fleeing the scene, and the testimony of the police officer as to her experience in dealing with this particular harmful chemical substance which is generally known to be sometimes used by juveniles for the purpose of intoxication, a chemical analysis was not essential to the proof of the charge. Cf. Koenig v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 627.
Affirmed.