Guydon v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that a “chain-of-custody objection made after the evidence [had] been admitted [was] not timely” and, thus, failed to preserve the issue on appeal
• affirming where the difference between the description of the drugs and the actual weight was .1172 grams and .0817 grams, respectively
• minor discrepancy in weights did not raise a reasonable probability that a break in chain of custody had occurred
• police weighed the contraband itself just as the crime laboratory did, with the question on appeal essentially becoming whether the weight discrepancy could be explained because different scales were used in the field and the laboratory

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).