because the provision addresses admissibility in slightly different language than the provision at issue (using “any trial, civil or criminal” instead of simply “any trial”). The majority interprets the modifier “civil or criminal” as indicating that crash reports must be excluded from literally “any trial,” whereas the omission of that modifier from the traffic citation provision indicates that citations need only be excluded from traffic-related trials. The majority claims that to conclude otherwise would be “to imply this missing language where the Legislature has obviously intended that it be omitted.” Majority op. at 447. I disagree that such a conclusion necessarily follows. One need not imply missing language to interpret es v. Perry, 702 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (<HOLDING>); Nelson v. State Dep’t of Highway Safety &
holding an appellate decision becomes the law of the case and is controlling on both the trial court and on any further appeals in the same case holding the doctrine applied in a case of mistake holding that a chemists report is admissible under dccode  4890506 without need for a testimonial foundation if four requirements are met 1 the analysis of a controlled substance must be performed by a chemist charged with an official duty to perform such analysis 2 an official report of chain of custody and of analysis of the controlled substance must be attested to by that chemist 3 the chemists official report must be attested to  by the officer having legal custody of the report and 4 the official report must be accompanied by a certificate under seal that the officer has legal custody  holding that the corbin case is controlling and therefore the crash report statute must also be applied to administrative proceedings holding that where first amendment freedoms are not infringed by the statute a vagueness claim must be evaluated as the statute is applied to the facts of the case