AA v. State, 461 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
AA v. State, 461 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“testimony on other facts, such as a substance's appearance and smell and the circumstances under which it was seized, can be used to meet the state's burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a substance is marijuana.”
62 citation events (35 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: STATE OF FLORIDA v. JAMAAL PICKERSGILL (fladistctapp, 2019-10-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) STATE OF FLORIDA v. JAMAAL PICKERSGILL
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
testimony on other facts, such as a substance's appearance and smell and the circumstances under which it was seized, can be used to meet the state's burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a substance is marijuana.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Campbell v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Sinclair v. State, 995 So. 2d 552, 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (recognizing that "marijuana identification by nonscientific means is a settled issue in Florida law"); Pama, 552 So. 2d at 311 (permitting "an experienced law enforcement officer" to identify marijuana based on visual examination); Dean v. State, 406 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (permitting a police officer with "substantial experience in narcotics investigation" to identify marijuana); A.A. v. State, 461 So. 2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (permitting officer with "four years in a special narcotics unit" to identify marijuana b…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R.C. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
See Sinclair v. State, 995 So. 2d 552, 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also Pama v. State, 552 So. 2d 309, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) ("It is not necessary for the state to prove the identification of marijuana by chemical or scientific means."); Dean v. State, 406 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (finding a law enforcement officer's testimony sufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of marijuana where the officer had substantial experience in narcotics investigations and was trained to recognize marijuana); A.A. v. State, 461 So. 2d 165, 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (holding that a law enforce…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R.C. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
DISCUSSION We think that the trial court correctly ruled that the deputy’s identification of the substance found in R.C.’s book bag as marijuana was admissible., in evidence.' Before the 2013 amendment to section 90.702, the identification of marijuana by nonscientific means was . a settled issue in the Florida courts, See Sinclair v. State, 995 So.2d 552, 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also Pama v. State, 552 So.2d 309, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (“It is not necessary for the state to prove the identification of marijuana by chemical or scientific means.”); Dean v. State, 406 So.2d 1162, 116…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) L.L. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
But in cases such as the one now before us, even if the trier of fact does not have the personal experience necessary to identify the substance in question, the reasoning process is not “foreign in kind.” Many people who have seen and smelled marijuana would be able to recognize it in the same way they recognize anything else they have seen or smelled before. 5 Here, Officer Munecas’s reasoning process is nothing that requires a specialist in the field of drug identification; it is reasoning familiar in everyday life. 6 See A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (recognizin…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) L.L. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
For example, appellant argues that even if L.L.’s admission were sufficient for a finding of guilt, “it is odd to rely on a juvenile’s assessment that a substance is marijuana when that juvenile himself has not been qualified as an expert[.]” Assuming L.L. offered opinion testimony in the first place (he did not because his statements were made outside of court), he need not be qualified as an expert to identify marijuana if his testimony, like that of Officer Munecas, were based on sufficient personal knowledge and arrived at 14 Here, Officer Munecas’s reasoning process is nothing t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R.C. v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
See Sinclair v. State, 995 So. 2d 552, 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also Pama v. State, 552 So. 2d 309, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) ("It is not necessary for the state to prove the identification of marijuana by chemical or scientific means."); Dean v. State, 406 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (finding a law enforcement officer's testimony sufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of marijuana where the officer had substantial experience in narcotics investigations and was trained to recognize marijuana); A.A. v. State, 461 So. 2d 165, 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (holding that a law enforce…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) M.M. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
See Brooks v. State, 762 So.2d 879, 892-94 (Fla.2000); Pama v. State, 552 So.2d 309, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (finding that the State proved a substance was cannabis based on the testimony of an experienced law enforcement officer who examined and identified the substance); A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 165-66, n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (holding that an officer’s testimony sufficiently established the identity of a substance as marijuana-based on its appearance, odor, and packaging).
cited Cited as authority (rule) T.S. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R.A.W. v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
This Court in S.C.S. and the Third District in A.A v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), noted that an experienced officer’s testimony about the “appearance and smell of illegal contraband” is enough to prove its illegal nature.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carter v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
The Third District found this evidence insufficient to establish that the substance involved was heroin, saying while “[p]roof of the identification of contraband does not require scientific tests ... it must be reliable and based on the observations of a witness with experience and training.” Id. at 444 (citing A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sinclair v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Pama v. State, 552 So.2d 309, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) ("It is not necessary for the [S]tate to prove the identification of marijuana by chemical or scientific means."); A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (permitting officer with "four years in a special narcotics unit" to identify marijuana based on sight, smell, and packaging of the marijuana with "rolling papers"); Dean v. State, 406 So.2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (permitting a police officer with "substantial experience in narcotics investigation" to identify marijuana); State v. Raulerson, 403 So.2d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 5…
cited Cited as authority (rule) P.N. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
See J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1379 (Fla.1998); A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hill v. Commonwealth (2×)
Ky. · 2004 · confidence medium
See United States v. Spann, 515 F.2d 579, 580 (10th Cir.1975); State v. Scott, 187 Ariz. 474 , 930 P.2d 551, 554 (App.1996); A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 167 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984); Dean v. State, 406 So.2d 1162, 1164 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); State v. McKee, 91 Ohio St.3d 292 , 744 N.E.2d 737 , 741-42 (2001); State v. Frazier, 162 W.Va. 602 , 252 S.E.2d 39, 50 (1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SCS v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Cf. J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376 , 1379 (Fla.1998) (holding juvenile's admission that he possessed beer is sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the substance was alcoholic in nature); A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (holding that even an officer's testimony concerning appearance and smell of illegal contraband based on experience is sufficient to prove the contraband is illegal).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) S.C.S. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
Cf. J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376 , 1379 (Fla.1998) (holding juvenile’s admission that he possessed beer is sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the substance was alcoholic in nature); A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (holding that even an officer’s testimony concerning appearance and smell of illegal contraband based on experience is sufficient to prove the contraband is illegal).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Weaver v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
cited Cited "see" C.E.M. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
cited Cited "see" Brooks v. State
Fla. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 166 .
cited Cited "see" D.M. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also United States v. Daniels, 723 F.2d 31 (8th Cir.1983).
cited Cited "see" DM v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See A.A. v. State, 461 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also United States v. Daniels, 723 F.2d 31 (8th Cir.1983).
A.A. a juvenile, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
83-984.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec 4, 1984.
461 So. 2d 165
Nesbitt, Daniel S. Pearson, and Jorgenson.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Richard E. Doran, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before NESBITT, DANIEL S. PEARSON, and JORGENSON, JJ.

NESBITT, Judge.

The juvenile challenges his adjudication of delinquency based upon possession of marijuana. We affirm.

The sole point on appeal is whether the state adequately identified the substance seized as marijuana. The state's only witness, the arresting officer, testified that in his opinion the substance was marijuana. The state relies on this opinion to satisfy its burden that it prove beyond a reasonable[*166] doubt that the substance was marijuana.

The officer had been with the police department for nine years and had spent four years in a special narcotics unit. During this time he had taken numerous courses related to narcotics investigation. The officer testified that during his career he had viewed and smelled "tons" of marijuana and that his identifications of substances as marijuana had always been corroborated by lab tests. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by finding the officer qualified, through his training and extensive work experience, as an "expert" in marijuana identification. § 90.702, Fla. Stat. (1983). See Jones v. State, 440 So.2d 570, 574 (Fla. 1983); Turner v. State, 388 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA), dismissed, 394 So.2d 1154 (Fla. 1980).[1]

The officer's opinion that the substance seized in the present case was marijuana was based upon his sensory perceptions of sight and smell, as well as the facts that the substance was in a clear plastic baggie and the juvenile possessed "rolling papers." In essence, the juvenile argues that this is an insufficient basis for the opinion and that something more in the line of scientific or chemical proof is required. We disagree.

Our sister courts have consistently held that it is not necessary for the state to prove the identity of marijuana by chemical or scientific proof. See Dean v. State, 406 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), review denied, 413 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1982); State v. Raulerson, 403 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Turner. Although scientific tests are probative in identifying marijuana, they are not the only means by which the state can prove its case. Testimony on other facts, such as a substance's appearance and smell and the circumstances under which it was seized, can be used to meet the state's burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a substance is marijuana. Raulerson; Turner. It is generally held that an officer with adequate experience in the narcotics field, and marijuana in particular, can identify a substance as marijuana by its appearance and odor. See Turner ("numerous cases hold that marijuana is not difficult to characterize without chemical analysis and that testimony of officers who have had experience searching for and identifying marijuana is sufficient" to meet the state's burden of proof) (quoting State v. Ostwald, 180 Mont. 530, 591 P.2d 646, 652 (1979)); Mishmash v. State, 423 So.2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (law enforcement officials trained in the detection of contraband have no difficulty recognizing both the smell and packaging of marijuana), review denied, 434 So.2d 888 (Fla.), review denied, 434 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 980, 79 L.Ed.2d 217 (1984); Dean (testimony of officer, experienced in narcotics investigation and trained to recognize marijuana, that occupants of a car passed around a cigarette in a manner commonly used in smoking marijuana coupled with his testimony that he smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the car was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict the occupants of possession of marijuana). See also United States v. Ferguson, 555 F.2d 1372 (9th Cir.1977) (experienced officer may identify substances with which he is familiar, i.e., marijuana); Cooper v. State, 629 S.W.2d 69 (Tex. App. 1982) (experienced officer's testimony as to identity of substance as marijuana is sufficient to establish identity of contraband), rev'd on other grounds, 648 S.W.2d 315 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Davenport v. State, 510 P.2d 988 (Okla. Crim. App. 1973) (testimony of officer[*167] trained in narcotics that substance is marijuana is sufficient to identify it). See generally Annot., 75 A.L.R.3d 717.

In the present case, the testifying officer had adequate experience in identifying marijuana to express an opinion on the nature of the seized substance. His opinion that the substance was marijuana was based upon its appearance, its odor, its packaging in a clear plastic baggie, and the juvenile's possession of "rolling papers." We find that there was a sufficient basis to support the officer's opinion and that the state thereby established the identity element of its prima facie case. The court, therefore, correctly denied the juvenile's motion for judgment of acquittal.

Of course, the credence and weight to be given the opinion testimony remained with the judge in its role as finder of fact. Jones. The judge here found that the state had proved beyond a reasonable doubt the fact that the substance was marijuana. Where, as here, the record supports the trial court's findings, questions of fact are not within our province as an appellate court. Turner. Accordingly, the adjudication of delinquency is affirmed.

1 The juvenile's argument that the officer's opinion testimony was that of a lay person and not an expert is without merit. Although earlier in the hearing the judge had refused to allow the officer to testify as a "scientific" expert, she subsequently allowed the officer to testify as an expert with "specialized knowledge." The state tendered and the judge accepted the officer's opinion testimony based upon his prior experience and knowledge in the narcotics field. The testimony, therefore, was clearly within the purview of section 90.702, dealing with the admissibility of opinion testimony of experts. See Jones. The decision as to an expert witness's qualifications is left to the trial court's discretion, reviewable only for abuse. Turner.