Opinion ID: 1712849
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: weight of the rocky substance

Text: In a similar manner, Brooks asserts that the trial court clearly erred in allowing Johnson to express an opinion that the rocks in the sandwich bag each weighed one gram. We disagree with the position that Johnson was not qualified to express an opinion regarding the approximate weight of the rocks in the sandwich bag. [17] The State presented evidence that (1) Johnson was an experienced crack cocaine dealer; (2) he had previously seen a quantity of fifty or more rocks of crack cocaine on more than five occasions, and he had, on a prior occasion, weighed more than fifty rocks of cocaine on a digital, triple-beam scale; (3) in the drug trade, a juggler, or rock of crack cocaine, is traded in one-gram increments; and (4) Johnson had the opportunity to examine and inspect the rocks in the sandwich bag, and he determined that the bag contained enough to sell fifty rocks that were about a gram in size and identical in shape. Under these circumstances, the trial court properly allowed Johnson to give opinion testimony regarding the approximate weight of the rocks in the sandwich bag. See, e.g., State v. Gilbert, 507 So.2d 637, 638 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (finding that trial court erred in precluding narcotics officer from testifying about approximate weight of bag containing cocaine that was dumped by defendant in pond, stating [a]n experienced narcotics officer (as well as a lay witness) can testify to the approximate weight of a given matter); Madruga v. State, 434 So.2d 331, 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (finding that experienced drug enforcement officer could properly testify to the approximate weight of the marijuana at issue).