TROY HEWITT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida affirmed Hewitt's conviction for possession and delivery of cannabis, holding that evidence of a marijuana growing stand 100 feet from his mobile home was relevant to show the source of delivered marijuana and his constructive possession, and was not unduly prejudicial character evidence.
Evidence of a marijuana growing stand near the defendant's residence is admissible to show the source of marijuana delivered and to rebut a defense of lack of disposition to possess marijuana.
[1] Evidence of a marijuana growing stand located near a defendant's residence is admissible to show the source of marijuana delivered and to rebut a defense of lack of dispo…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHewitt was charged with possession and delivery of cannabis after delivering small quantities to undercover agents. The State introduced evidence of a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Possession Of Cannabis cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.
We affirm appellant’s conviction for possession and delivery of cannabis, Sections 893.13(l)(a)2 and 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1979), and in doing so reject appellant’s claim that the State’s proof of a growing stand of marijuana 100 feet from appellant’s mobile home, where he allegedly delivered small quantities to undercover agents, was irrelevant and wrongfully prejudicial as character-disparaging or propensity evidence, excluded by Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959). The evidence had some marginal relevance in showing a likely source of the marijuana delivered, or in showing appellant’s constructive possession, at the time of delivery, of that source. The evidence tended also to disprove the (correctly) anticipated defense that the agents improperly solicited the delivery from one who was not disposed to possess marijuana for any purpose other than personal use. The distance of the marijuana stand from the mobile home attenuated its relevance but also correspondingly lessened any undue prejudice from the implication that appellant may have been guilty of serious crimes not charged. Being somewhat relevant, and not being unduly prejudicial under all the circumstances, the evidence was admissible. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in permitting the proof during the State’s case in chief rather than in rebuttal.
AFFIRMED.
MILLS, C. J., and WENTWORTH, J., concur.