Summary
holding that prior calibration of measuring device not required
Summary of this case from State v. HaskinsOpinion
No. 91-1938.
September 10, 1991.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Charles M. Fahlbusch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Carol J.Y. Wilson, Asst. Public Defender, for respondents.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and COPE, JJ.
Nothing in Everett v. State, 579 So.2d 394, 395 (Fla.3d DCA 1991), including the tangential reference to section 531.41(8), Florida Statutes (1989), creates or suggests a requirement that a measuring device used to determine that a drug sale took place less than one thousand feet from a school under section 893.13(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1989) must be previously calibrated or otherwise independently tested for accuracy. In fact, there is no such requirement. See St. Louis S.F. Ry. Co. v. Brown, 62 Ark. 254, 35 S.W. 225 (1896); 2 Wigmore on Evidence § 571 (Chadbourn rev. 1979) (distance proper subject of lay testimony); 7 Wigmore on Evidence § 1977, at 191 n. 2 (Chadbourn rev. 1978) (distance proper subject of expert testimony). Accordingly, the contrary order below, which excluded pertinent evidence on that basis, is quashed.
Certiorari granted.