Case Name: Stoddard PICKRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-09-27
Citations: 301 So. 2d 473
Docket Number: No. 74-25
Parties: Stoddard PICKRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: HOBSON, Acting C. J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 301
Pages: 473–474

Head Matter:
Stoddard PICKRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 74-25.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Sept. 27, 1974.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 1, 1974.
James A. Gardner, Public Defender, Sarasota, and Robert T. Benton, II, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
BOARDMAN, Judge.
The appellant, Stoddard Pickrell, was charged by information with possession of LSD. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict of guilty and the appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment, with credit for time served. This timely appeal followed. On appeal, Pickrell assigns three errors, we have considered each of them but conclude that only one merits discussion.
An undercover agent of the Sarasota Police Department testified that he purchased the contraband in question from the appellant; that he was in an automobile with the appellant from five to ten minutes; that he had written the vehicle tag number of the car in which the purchase was made immediately after the buy, and that he had placed that information in a "baggie" with the LSD. He testified further that the "baggie" was given to Officer Cooley who testified as a witness for the state that he had telephoned the Sarasota Police Department to have them teletype Tallahassee for the name of the owner of the vehicle. Officer Cooley further testified that the tag was identified as belonging to appellant. Timely objection to this testimony was made on the ground that it was hearsay.
We agree with the appellant's contention that this testimony was clearly inadmissible. Computer printouts, like business records, are admissible if the custodian or other qualified witness is available to testify as to manner of preparation, reliability and trustworthiness of the product. United States v. Russo, 6th Cir., 1973, 480 F.2d 1228; Mastan Co. v. American Custom Homes, Inc., Fla.App.2nd, 1968, 214 So.2d 103. The case sub judice reveals no such verification was attempted nor was a sufficient predicate adduced for the introduction of such testimony.
The direct identification of the appellant by the undercover agent, considered separate and apart from the vehicle identification, is of such quality that the jury could have found, as it did, that appellant was guilty as charged in the information. Accordingly, we conclude that in light of the record the complained-of error is considered to be harmless. See Section 924.-33, Florida Statutes; Butler v. State, 94 Fla. 163, 113 So. 699 (1927).
The judgment and sentence rendered by the trial judge are
Affirmed.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., concurs.
GRIMES, J., dissents with opinion.