Opinion ID: 1712849
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: identity of the rocky substance

Text: In A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 165-66 & n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the trial court allowed a police officer to testify as an expert with specialized knowledge that, in his opinion, the substance possessed by the defendant was marijuana. The officer had been with the police department for nine years and had worked four years in a special narcotics unit; he had participated in numerous courses relating to narcotics investigation; he had seen and smelled tons of marijuana during his career; and his prior substance identifications had always been corroborated by lab tests. See id. at 166. The officer formed his opinion regarding the particular substance possessed by the defendant based upon sight, smell, the packaging of the substance, and the fact that the defendant possessed rolling papers. See id. On appeal, the Third District approved the admission of the officer's testimony, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the officer qualified, through his training and extensive work experience, as an `expert' in marijuana identification. Id. (citing, among other authorities, section 90.702, Florida Statutes (1983)); cf., e.g., Pama v. State, 552 So.2d 309, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (determining that the State adequately proved substance was marijuana based on experienced law enforcement officer's examination and identification of the substance); Dean v. State, 406 So.2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (finding that jury could properly find defendant guilty of marijuana possession based on testimony of experienced narcotics officer that he saw occupants of car smoking cigarette in manner commonly used in smoking marijuana, and he smelled strong odor of marijuana emanating from the car immediately thereafter). Although the Third District's decision in A.A. addressed whether an experienced law enforcement officer could properly express an opinion, as an expert, regarding the identity of marijuana, it appears that no Florida appellate decision has addressed whether a person who is experienced with marijuana or another controlled substance as either a dealer, user, or both, may similarly be qualified to express such an opinion. Courts in many other jurisdictions have, however, allowed such persons to express opinion testimony regarding the identity of alleged controlled substances. See, e.g., United States v. Dominguez, 992 F.2d 678, 681 (7th Cir. 1993) (stating that circumstantial evidence establishing identity of an alleged controlled substance may include, among other things, lay-experience based on familiarity through prior use, trading, or law enforcement, citing United States v. Manganellis, 864 F.2d 528, 541 (7th Cir. 1988)); United States v. Paiva, 892 F.2d 148, 157 (1st Cir.1989) (finding that witness may express opinion regarding identity of an alleged controlled substance based on past experience and personal knowledge and observation); State v. Saez, 173 Ariz. 624, 845 P.2d 1119, 1124 (App.1992) (stating that a majority of jurisdictions have held that drug abusers or addicts may possess sufficient qualifications to testify about matters at issue in a narcotics prosecution); Copeland v. State, 430 N.E.2d 393, 396 (Ind.Ct.App.1982) (finding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing experienced drug addict to testify as an expert witness regarding identity of dilaudid); Commonwealth v. Dawson, 399 Mass. 465, 504 N.E.2d 1056, 1057 (1987) (stating that [t]he great weight of authority in this country permits... an experienced user of a controlled substance to testify that a substance that he saw and used was a particular drug); State v. Rubio, 110 N.M. 605, 798 P.2d 206, 208 (App.1990) (determining that witness's experience as a successful cocaine dealer qualified him to give his opinion that the substance was cocaine); Hill v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 60, 379 S.E.2d 134, 136 (1989) (Users and addicts, if they have gained a familiarity or experience with a drug, may identify it. Numerous courts have permitted lay purchasers of drugs to testify as to the identification of drugs after previous use has been demonstrated.); State v. Hernandez, 85 Wash.App. 672, 935 P.2d 623, 625 (1997) (stating that a witness who demonstrates an expertise `acquired either by education or experience' in this area may give an opinion as to the identity of a substance); see generally Michael D. Blanchard & Gabriel J. Chin, Identifying the Enemy in the War on Drugs: A Critique of the Developing Rule Permitting Visual Identification of Indescript White Powder in Narcotics Prosecutions, 47 Am. U.L.Rev. 557 (1998); J. Allison DeFoor, II, Consumer Testimony as Proof of Identity of the Controlled Substance in a Narcotics Case, 33 U. Fla. L.Rev. 682 (1981); W.A. Harrington, Annotation, Competency of Drug Addict or User to Identify Suspect Material as Narcotic or Controlled Substance, 95 A.L.R.3d 978 (1979 & 1999 Supp.). It is our view that, upon establishment of a proper predicate, a drug dealer under these circumstances may express an opinion, in the form of expert testimony, regarding the identity of crack cocaine. We do not reach the issue as to any other possible controlled substance. In the present case, the State presented evidence that (1) Michael Johnson was an experienced crack cocaine dealer, having sold that drug almost every day for approximately two years; (2) Johnson never sold bad, defective, or fake crack; (3) Johnson obtained the sandwich bag which contained the substance from his long-time friend and associate, Darryl Jenkins, who was a crack cocaine user and dealer who did not sell bad, defective, or fake crack; (4) Johnson had sold drugs earlier that evening; (5) Jacqueline Thompson, who brought Brooks and Brown to the location for the purchase of rocks of crack cocaine, regularly purchased that substance from Johnson at the Jenkins home; and (6) Johnson had an opportunity to examine and inspect the rocky substance contained in the sandwich bag that he obtained from Darryl Jenkins. Under these circumstances, we find that the trial court did not clearly err in allowing Michael Johnson to express his opinion, in the form of expert testimony, that the sandwich bag contained crack cocaine. Cf. United States, v. Marsalla, 164 F.3d 1178, 1179-80 (8th Cir. 1999) (finding that in making sentencing determination, district court justifiably relied upon experienced crack cocaine dealer's opinion that the substance she had purchased, visually inspected, and then sold to defendant was crack cocaine),