LAMORRIS GRIMMAGE, 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.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to determine the identity of the marijuana, and the jury instruction for the controlled substance delivery statute was proper.
The appellant was convicted of possession and delivery of a controlled substance to a minor. The key factual dispute involved whether the marijuana ba…
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 A Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Grimmage appeals his convictions for possession of a controlled substance and for delivery of a controlled substance to a minor in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1981), contending that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal and that the jury was erroneously instructed by the trial court. We disagree with each of his contentions and affirm.
We need not delve into a lengthy recitation of the facts. Suffice it to say that we find that the evidence presented was sufficient to create a jury question as to whether the bag of marijuana thrown into the automobile by Grimmage was the same bag recovered by police officers and later introduced at trial.
We further hold that the trial court did not err in giving the standard jury instruction for Section 893.13(l)(c) even though that instruction does not contain language on intent to deliver. “[Wjhere a Statute denounces the doing of an act as criminal without specifically requiring criminal intent, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the commission of such act was accompanied by criminal intent.” State v. Medlin, 273 So. 2d 394, 396 (Fla.1973); State v. Ryan, 413 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Medlin, 273 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. Ryan, 413 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)