TYRONE HOWARD, 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.
An inmate was convicted of possessing contraband in a state correctional institution, but the trial court failed to instruct the jury that the state must prove the defendant had knowledge of the contraband's presence. The appellate court reversed, holding that knowledge is an essential element of the crime that must be charged to the jury.
The trial court reversibly erred by omitting the essential element of knowledge from the jury instructions. The defendant was entitled to an instruction that knowledge of the presence of the contraband was a necessary element of the crime charged. The jury must find that the defendant had knowledge of the contraband's presence as a prerequisite to conviction.
[1] A prosecution for possession of contraband in a state correctional institution requires proof that the defendant had knowledge of the contraband.
[2] A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the theory of their defense, including unwitting possession of contraband.
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 intelligence“The defendant was entitled to an instruction that knowledge of the presence of the contraband was an essential element of the crime charged.”
Establishes the core holding that knowledge is a necessary element that must be submitted to the jury
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant, an inmate at Union Correctional Institution, was given a bag by another inmate who asked him to bring cigarettes inside. When searched at t…
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 Essential Element Of A Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court reversibly erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the state must prove, in a prosecution of the defendant for possession of contraband in a state correctional institution under Section 944.47, Florida Statutes, that the defendant had knowledge of such possession. We reverse.
The defendant, an inmate of the Union Correctional Institution, testified that when he was coming out from the visiting park, another inmate asked that he bring some cigarettes in for him. The inmate gave the defendant a bag which the defendant says he assumed contained the cigarettes. He was then searched at the “movement center” by an officer who removed three sealed cigarette packages from the bag. The officer removed the cellophane wrappers, opened the packages, and discovered a fifty dollar bill and a quantity of cannabis. That was the first time, according to the defendant, that he had any knowledge of the existence of such contraband.
There was no evidence, other than the defendant’s possession of the bag, indicating the defendant’s knowledge of the presence of the contraband. The defendant does not contend that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of guilty. Compare Schaufele v. State, 269 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). He does contend, however, that he was entitled to have the jury charged on the theory of his defense, unwitting possession of the contraband. The defendant was entitled to an instruction that knowledge of the presence of the contraband was an essential element of the crime charged. See Cole v. State, 353 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978); Williams v. State, 413 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); and Wilson v. State, 344 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977).
The state contends that the trial court’s instructions were sufficient to adequately charge the jury. There is no standard jury instruction on the subject crime contained in the Florida Standard Jury Instructions In Criminal Cases (1981 Edition). Accordingly, the court relied principally, and correctly so, upon the standard instructions appearing under “Drug Abuse — Possession, F.S. 893.13(l)(e)” found at page 225 of the above-referred instruction manual. However, the court omitted the third element that the defendant “had knowledge of the presence of the substance.” And although the court did include the instruction that “if a person has exclusive possession of a thing, knowledge of its presence may be inferred or assumed,” such did not serve to inform the jury that, as a prerequisite to conviction, the jury must find that the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the contraband.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and Remanded.
MILLS, J., and PEARSON, TILLMAN, (Ret.) Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Acosta v. State, 519 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…ct may be reversible error. See State v. Dominguez, 509 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1987) (upholding district court’s ruling that failure to give a requested instruction that the defendant knew the substance was cocaine warranted a new trial); Howard v. State, 467 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (jury, as a prerequisite to a conviction, must find that the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the contraband); Cole v. State, 353 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (standard jury instruction alone did not adequately explain…
Authorities Cited
- Schaufele v. State, 269 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- C. G. H. v. State, 344 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Wilson v. State, 344 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Williams v. State, 413 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Cole v. State, 353 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)