From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Butler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jul 19, 1977
348 So. 2d 627 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

Opinion

No. 76-1037.

July 19, 1977.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Harold R. Vann, J.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Julian S. Mack, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C.J., and PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ.


The defendant was granted a delayed appeal pursuant to Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1969). On the appeal, the single point presented urges reversal upon the ground that the original object from which his latent fingerprint was lifted was not produced in court. While no case supporting this proposition has been cited, it should be noted that the evidence showed that the object was not available to the State at the time of trial. No error has been shown. Cf. United States v. Sewar, 468 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Herndon, 536 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1976); and Smith v. State, 305 So.2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Butler v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jul 19, 1977
348 So. 2d 627 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
Case details for

Butler v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT BUTLER, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jul 19, 1977

Citations

348 So. 2d 627 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

Citing Cases

Jones v. State

This is especially true when the original object from which derivative evidence was adduced was not available…

Baum v. State

The first point is that the court erred in permitting an expert witness to give an opinion based on latent…