STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
EARL W. HAYES, 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's Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's dismissal of charges under section 831.31, Florida Statutes, which prohibits the sale, manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to sell counterfeit controlled substances. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the statute was facially unconstitutional for failing to explicitly require an intent-to-defraud element.
Section 831.31 is facially constitutional despite the absence of an explicit intent-to-defraud requirement. The statute does not criminalize innocent possession of counterfeit controlled substances by one who is unaware the substance is counterfeit and is otherwise lawfully entitled to possess it.
[1] A statute prohibiting the distribution of counterfeit controlled substances is not facially unconstitutional for failing to explicitly state the element of intent to defr…
[2] A statute criminalizing the sale, manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver a counterfeit controlled substance does not criminaliz…
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 believe the trial court erred in ruling that the provisions of section 831.31, Florida Statutes (1981), were facially unconstitutional and dismissing the charges filed against the appellant for allegedly violating the statute.”
Establishes the core holding that the statute is constitutional and the trial court erred in dismissing the charges.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEarl W. Hayes was charged with violating section 831.31, Florida Statutes (1981), which addresses counterfeit controlled substances—substances falsely…
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 Violation Of Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
REVERSED. We believe the trial court erred in ruling that the provisions of section 831.31, Florida Statutes (1981),1 were facially unconstitutional and dismissing the charges filed against the appellant for allegedly violating the statute.
The appellant contends that the statute is defective because it fails to specifically provide the element of intent to defraud, a defect we found fatal in reviewing another statute in State v. Bussey, 444 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We cannot agree that the lack of such element renders the statute void. Section 831.31, as noted in its title, is directed to the problem of the distribution of counterfeit controlled substances, i.e., substances that may be identified as one thing but are really another. We agree that the statute does not make criminal the innocent possession of a counterfeit controlled substance, i.e., the possession by one who has no knowledge that the substance is counterfeit and who is otherwise lawfully entitled to possess what is apparently a valid controlled substance. Section 831.31 is also unlike section 893.-13(2)(a)7, Florida Statutes (1981), which prohibits one from keeping a lawfully dispensed controlled substance in any container other than the one in which it was originally dispensed. See State v. Walker, 444 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
In conclusion, we uphold the facial constitutionality of section 831.31 and reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings in accord herewith.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur. . 831.31 Counterfeit controlled substance; sale, manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver.—
(1) It is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or to possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a counterfeit controlled substance. Any person who violates this subsection with respect to:
(a) A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(1), (2), (3), or (4) is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03(5) is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) For purposes of this section, "counterfeit controlled substance” means:
(a) A controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03 which, or the container or labeling of which, without authorization bears the trademark, trade name, or other identifying mark, imprint, or number, or any likeness thereof, of a manufacturer other than the person who in fact manufactured the controlled substance; or (b) Any substance which is falsely identified by its container or labeling as a controlled substance named or described in s. 893.03.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Pellicci, 469 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…smissing informa-tions filed against Barbara Jean Pellicci on the grounds that sections 817.563 and 831.-31, Florida Statutes (1983), are unconstitutional. We reverse upon authority of State v. Bussey, 463 So. 2d 1141 (Fla.1985), and State v. Hayes, 446 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded. LETTS, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Schiller v. State, 447 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of State v. Hayes, 446 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s recommendation in Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981), the mandate in this case will be withheld pending final disposition of the petition for review, if any, filed in State v. Hayes,…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Walker, 444 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- State v. Bussey, 444 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)