JESUS VALENZUELA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Preserve Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The fact that the police returned to its owner a Jartran rental truck driven by and seized from the defendant did not, as the defendant suggests, constitute a failure to preserve evidence, entitling the defendant to a dismissal of the charges. First, the defendant was provided with the identification number of the truck and with the exertion of any effort could have located and examined the very truck. Second, in that the defendant’s avowed purpose in examining the truck was to aid him in cross-examining a police officer as to the officer’s ability to detect the odor of marijuana in the padlocked portion of the truck, other substantially identical Jartran trucks were available for that purpose. Thus, even if it could be said that the evidence was not preserved, the defendant was not prejudiced thereby, and the extreme sanction of dismissal was inappropriate. State v. Sobel, 363 So. 2d 324 (Fla.1978). The defendant’s other point on appeal is equally without merit.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Landry v. Charlotte Motor Cars, LLC, 226 So. 3d 1053 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…ty from rightfully possessing the vehicle to preserve the vehicle, especially when the Dealership knew the vehicle’s identification number and “with the exertion of any effort could have located and examined the [vehicle].”6 See Valenzuela v. State, 426 So. 2d 1294, 1295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (finding the police did not fail to preserve .evidence when it returned the rental truck to its owner instead of the defendant because the defendant had the truck’s identification number and could have located the truck). In…
-
State v. Oreste Edward Panice and Clarence Eddis Bowers, 488 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…PER CURIAM. This criminal case was dismissed because the state supposedly altered evidence and/or committed a discovery violation. These alleged derelictions were not demonstrated even to have existed. See Valenzuela v. State, 426 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Assuming that they did, dismissal was a wholly inappropriate and excessive sanction. State v. Rodriguez, 483 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 453 So. 2…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Sobel, 363 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1978)