K.M., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 affirmed a juvenile's adjudication of delinquency for cocaine possession with intent to sell, holding that substantial circumstantial evidence, including expert testimony on drug packaging, supported the finding of intent to sell beyond reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Substantial circumstantial evidence, including expert testimony regarding drug packaging and quantity, supports an adjudication of delinquency for possession of cocaine with intent to sell.
[1] Circumstantial evidence of drug packaging and quantity, supported by expert testimony, may establish intent to sell cocaine even when quantity alone would be insufficient…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK.M., a juvenile, was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The trial court heard evidence including narcotics officers' expert test…
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 Intent To Sell cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
K.M., a juvenile, appeals the trial court’s adjudication of delinquency for possession of cocaine with intent to sell. We affirm.
First, we decline to consider K.M. s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the narcotics officers to testify concerning the packaging of the cocaine. Because the specific legal ground argued on appeal was not presented to the trial court, K.M. has not properly preserved that point for review. Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985). Second, the adjudication of delinquency is supported by substantial competent, albeit circumstantial, evidence. Although the small quantity alone is not sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove intent to sell, McCullough v. State, 541 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), additional evidence supports the trial court’s finding that K.M. intended to sell the cocaine. See e.g. United States v. Robinson, 870 F. 2d 612 (11th Cir.1989). Finally, the record supports a trial court determination that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis but that of K.M.’s guilt. See G.D. v. State, 497 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The state presented evidence — the officers’ expert testimony and the packaging of the drugs — from which the trial court could have concluded that K.M. intended to sell the cocaine and rejected K.M.’s contention that he merely possessed the drugs for his own use. Robinson.
Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency for possession with intent to sell cocaine.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bruce v. State, 616 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…with expert evidence of an experienced narcotics officer that the quantity involved indicated that the crack was for sale, was more than sufficient to justify the jury’s conclusion that Bruce indeed held the cocaine for distribution. K.M. v. State, 545 So. 2d 464, 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“The State presented evidence — the officers’ expert testimony and the packaging of the drugs — from which the trial court could have concluded that K.M. intended to sell the cocaine and rejected K.M.’s contention that he me…
-
Antwain Gamble v. State, 644 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…ified that he was convinced that the defendant intended to sell the rocks, there is nothing in the opinion to indicate that any objection was raised to this testimony at trial nor that this was an issue considered by the court. 3. In K.M. v. State, 545 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the district court declined to consider the appellant’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the narcotics officers to testify concerning the packaging of cocaine because the specific legal ground a…1 / 2
-
Eli Scarlett v. State, 704 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…commercial street size); K.J. v. State, 557 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (the large amount of marijuana and the way it was packaged supports the inference that it was not intended for defendant’s personal use but rather for resale); K.M. v. State, 545 So. 2d 464, 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“The state presented evidence — the officers’ expert testimony and the packaging of the drugs— from which the trial court could have concluded that K.M. intended to sell the cocaine _”). We conclude that expert testimony re…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)
- Worth Moses McCULLOUGH v. State, 541 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- United States v. Robinson, 870 F.2d 612 (11th Cir. 1989)
- G.D. v. State, 497 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)