JAMES RICHARD PEAK AND EWELL ANTHONY PEAK, APPELLANTS,
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.
James Richard Peak and Ewell Anthony Peak were convicted of manufacturing marijuana, but the appellate court reversed because the trial court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted manufacturing. The court held that attempted manufacture is a separate and lesser offense supported by the evidence.
The trial court erred in refusing the requested jury instruction on attempted manufacturing of marijuana. Attempted manufacture is a separate offense from completed manufacture and is a proper lesser included offense. The evidence presented was sufficient to support such an instruction because the events could be viewed as a crime short of the completed act of manufacturing.
[1] Attempted manufacture of a controlled substance is a separate offense from the completed crime of manufacture.
[2] A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser included offense if there is evidence to support such an instruction.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We agree with appellants' position that attempted manufacture is not the same as the completed crime of manufacture as the crime is defined in the statute, thus it is a separate offense.”
Establishes that attempt to manufacture is legally distinct from completed manufacture and qualifies as a lesser included offense
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaw enforcement conducted surveillance at a location where marijuana was being grown. Deputy sheriffs observed the appellants approach and examine the…
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 Manufacturing Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
James Richard Peak and Ewell Anthony Peak were found guilty of manufacturing marijuana in violation of Section 893.-13(l)(a), Florida Statutes. They, contend the trial court erred in refusing to give a requested jury instruction on the lesser included offense of attempted manufacturing of marijuana. We agree that under the circumstances of this case, appellants were entitled to the requested instruction, therefore we reverse and remand for a new trial.
The evidence presented indicated that based on information that marijuana was being grown in a particular location, the local sheriff’s office set up a surveillance point at the site. Sheriff’s deputies observed appellants approach and look at the marijuana plants. They observed James Peak cut marijuana plants and hand them to Ewell Anthony Peak. After Ewell Anthony Peak had seven or eight of the plants on his shoulder, the arrests occurred. The house closest to the marijuana patch be longed to James Peak, but one of the deputies testified he did not know who planted or cultivated the plants.
“Manufacture” is defined in Section 893.-02(ll)(a) as:
[T]he production, preparation, progagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly, by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, and includes any packaging of the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container ....
We agree with appellants’ position that attempted manufacture is not the same as the completed crime of manufacture as the crime is defined in the statute, thus it is a separate offense. Compare State v. Sykes, 434 So. 2d 325 (Fla.1983). Attempt is listed as a lesser included offense to manufacturing in the schedule of lesser included offenses in the Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases. We also agree that there was evidence to support an instruction on attempted manufacture since the events described could be viewed as a crime short of the completed act of manufacturing, therefore the attempt instruction should have been given, see Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.510 (as amended Oct. 1, 1981) and discussion of that rule in In the Matter of the Use by the Trial Courts of the Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1981).
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
ERVIN, C.J., and MINER, CHARLES E., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re the USE BY the Trial Courts OF the Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases & the Standard Jury Instructions in Misdemeanor Cases, 431 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1981)
- State v. Sykes, 434 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1983)