DAVID SHANE WIESENBERG, 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 state need not prove the defendant knew the quantity of cocaine exceeded twenty-eight grams to convict for trafficking.
[1] A conviction for trafficking in cocaine requires proof that the defendant knowingly sold, delivered, or possessed cocaine, and that the quantity involved was 28 grams or…
[2] To convict a defendant of trafficking in cocaine, the state must prove the defendant's knowledge of possessing or selling cocaine, but not necessarily the defendant's kno…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Wiesenberg was convicted of trafficking in cocaine. He appealed, arguing the state must prove he knew the quantity exceeded the statutory thresh…
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 Trafficking In Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
David Wiesenberg appeals from his conviction for trafficking in cocaine in violation of section 893.135(l)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp.1982). The statute, in pertinent part, provides:
Any person who knowingly sells, manufactures, delivers, or brings into this state, or who is knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, 28 grams or more of cocaine ... is guilty of ... trafficking in cocaine.
§ 893.135(l)(b)l, Fla.Stat. The trial judge instructed the jury that under the statute, the state must prove:
(1) The defendant knowingly sold, delivered or possessed a certain substance.
(2) The substance was cocaine or a mixture containing cocaine.
(3) The quantity of the cocaine involved was 28 grams or more.
See Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases.
Wiesenberg argues on appeal that the state was obligated to prove that he had specific knowledge that he was selling an amount which would satisfy the trafficking statute. Wiesenberg relies on State v. Ryan, 413 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) in support of his contention that he must have known he was trafficking in cocaine in an amount exceeding twenty-eight grams before he could be convicted. Ryan, however, only stands for the proposition that before a defendant can be convicted pursuant to the trafficking statute, he must be cognizant of the fact he is selling a particular substance. In Ryan, the defendant thought she was trafficking in marijuana, not in cocaine as she was later convicted of.
We do not find any substance to Wiesen-berg’s position. It is sufficient if Wiesen-berg knew he was selling cocaine. If it exceeded twenty-eight grams, he may be convicted of trafficking even if the state does not prove he knew the quantity exceeded twenty-eight grams. In this regard, we analogize the situation to that involving grand theft wherein the state need only show that the defendant had the requisite intent to obtain the property, not that he knew it was valued at $100 or more.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Dominguez, 509 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1987)…owledge of its nature. In making these assertions, the state relies in part on two cases holding that the jury need not find that a defendant specifically knew he possessed more than 28 grams of cocaine, a statutory requirement. Wiesenberg v. State, 455 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Way v. State, 458 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), approved, 475 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1985). Although specific knowledge of the weight of cocaine is not required, we cannot agree that the same conclusion is true when the defendant ass…
-
State v. Brady Austin, Jr., 532 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…y, this court had held that the state need not prove the defendant’s specif [*21] ic knowledge that he was selling an amount to satisfy the trafficking statute noting it sufficient that the defendant knew he was selling cocaine. Wiesenberg v. State, 455 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). In response to a certified question from this court, the supreme court held that knowledge of the weight was not an essential element of the crime of trafficking in cocaine. Way v. State, 475 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1985). Nevertheless…
-
Dominguez v. State, 492 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…f trafficking in cocaine under section 893.135(l)(b). The supreme court pointed out that the statute requires “knowing” possession of cocaine and, therefore, lack of knowledge that the substance is cocaine is a defense. See also Wiesenberg v. State, 455 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); State v. Ryan, 413 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. den., 421 So. 2d 518 (Fla.1982). In Way, the supreme court approved the following instructions: Before you can find the Defendant guilty of trafficking in cocaine, the State mu…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Ryan, 413 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)