LR v. State

L.R., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 13, 1990.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1990-02-13

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“At the adjudicatory hearing the sole evidence identifying the substance was the officer’s testimony that, based on his past experience, it appeared to be rock cocaine, and that it field tested positive for cocaine. The officer described the procedure for performing the test but was unable to testify as to the reliability of the test. No laboratory report was introduced nor was a chemist called to testify.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Futch v. State

Relies on 543 So. 2d 443 - Weaver v. State · Cabral v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-02-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2015

10 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *122 Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Burke, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Ivy R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before HUBBART, BASKIN and COPE, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5L.R. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for possession of cocaine. At the adjudicatory hearing the sole evidence identifying the substance was the officer's testimony that, based on his past experience, it appeared to be rock cocaine, and that it field tested positive for cocaine. The officer described the procedure for performing the test but was unable to testify as to the reliability of the test. No laboratory report was introduced, nor was a chemist called to testify. Based on Cabral v. State, 550 So.2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) and Weaver v. State, 543 So.2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the evidence was insufficient. We therefore reverse the adjudication of delinquency and remand with directions to discharge L.R.

¶6Reversed.