MIKE JOHNSON, JR., 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.
Mike Johnson, Jr. was convicted of attempted trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine following a reverse sting operation. The court reversed his conviction and directed his discharge because the state presented insufficient evidence to establish his participation in or knowledge of the criminal conspiracy beyond his mere presence at the scene.
The trial court erred in denying the motion for acquittal. Mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to establish the requisite knowledge and intent to participate in the commission of the offense. The state's only evidence regarding Mike was that an agent observed him exiting a pickup truck and arrested him, which is legally insufficient to support conviction.
[1] Mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to establish the requisite knowledge and intent to participate in the commission of an offense.
[2] A defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted when the state fails to present sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
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“The mere presence of a person at a scene of a crime is insufficient to establish the requisite knowledge and intent to participate in the commission of the offense.”
Establishes the legal standard that presence at the crime scene alone cannot support a conviction for conspiracy or attempted trafficking.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMike Johnson, Jr. was arrested along with his brother Joe Johnson and M.L. Brumfield during a reverse sting operation conducted by the Polk County She…
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 Attempted Trafficking In Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
Mike Johnson, Jr. (Mike) appeals from convictions of attempted trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in 400 grams or more of cocaine. Because we determine that the trial court erred in denying Mike’s motion for judgment of acquittal, we limit our discussion to that point on appeal.
Mike was arrested together with his brother, Joe Johnson (Joe), and M.L. Brum-field in a reverse sting operation conducted by the Polk County Sheriffs Department. In addition to the crime lab technician, the prosecution’s case consisted of the testimony of five witnesses.
Leroy Ellis, a paid informant, testified that he offered to arrange a sale of cocaine to Joe. He telephoned his contact in the sheriff’s department, who in turn arranged to have undercover officers and the cocaine in a designated motel room in Bartow. Ellis then drove with Joe from Arcadia to Bartow and introduced him to the purported drug sellers. He observed Joe leave the motel room, go to a pickup truck (not the vehicle they had arrived in) in the parking lot, and return, accompanied by Brumfield, with a paper bag containing money. Ellis had no knowledge of Mike.
Steve Hammerburg, an undercover officer, testified that he had possession of one and one-half kilograms of cocaine in his car in the motel parking lot. Upon a prearranged signal, he delivered the cocaine to the designated motel room. Hammerburg had no knowledge of Mike.
Lieutenant James Madden testified that he was in charge of the operation and was present in the motel room. He negotiated the sale with Joe, accepted $16,000 from Joe, and delivered the cocaine to him. As Joe left the room, other officers, who did not testify, arrested Joe and Brumfield. The entire transaction was tape recorded and the tape was played to the jury. There is no reference to Mike on the tape and Madden had no knowledge of him. Madden further testified that an additional $28,260 in cash was recovered from the pickup truck in the parking lot.
Richard Land, special agent, testified that his assignment was to remain in his car in the parking lot and “take down” (arrest) anyone in the parking lot when the primary arrests occurred. He observed Mike get out of the pickup truck and arrested him. Land had not previously observed Mike and had no other knowledge of him.
Sergeant Gary Hester testified that he was Ellis’ contact. He arranged Madden’s meeting with Joe and Ellis and headed the arrest team of the operation. He had no knowledge of Mike prior to the arrests. He later conducted taped interviews of all three defendants.
Of these three taped interviews, only the statement of Brumfield, over Mike’s counsel’s objections, was played to the jury. The playing of the tape was not transcribed by the court reporter and the written transcript of the statement which was admitted into evidence is not part of the record be fore us. If we were to assume that Brum-field’s hearsay statement in someway implicated Mike in the transaction, it would nonetheless be inadmissible as to him, because the conditions precedent of the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule had not been met. See Miller v. State, 545 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); § 90.803(18)(e), Fla.Stat. (1987).
The only evidence the state offered as to Mike is that Agent Land saw Mike exiting the pickup truck and arrested him. The mere presence of a person at a scene of a crime is insufficient to establish the requisite knowledge and intent to participate in the commission of the offense. Gueits v. State, 566 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Fox v. State, 469 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 480 So. 2d 1296 (Fla.1985); Chaudoin v. State, 362 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). It was error to deny the motion for acquittal.
Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge the defendant.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anthony Banks v. State, 790 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 2001)…did not rely on this particular testimony in reaching its decision. Of course, a person’s mere presence at the site of a drug transaction is insufficient, in and of itself, to establish participation in the transaction. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 581 So. 2d 220, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). As noted above, the information contained within the objectionable statements was prejudicial and directly implicated Banks in the transaction.4 It was also used in arguments by the State to the jury.5 Further, the record re…
-
Castillo v. State, 590 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…cert. denied, 327 So. 2d 31 (Fla.1976), it is also settled that mere presence at the crime scene, without more, is insufficient to establish the existence of a criminal conspiracy. Honchell v. State, 257 So. 2d 889, 891 (Fla.1971); Johnson v. State, 581 So. 2d 220, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We conclude that the evidence here is insufficient to support the conspiracy conviction and therefore reverse that count. Defendant’s second argument is that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for arres…
-
Bravo v. State, 963 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…731 So. 2d 638, 644-45 (Fla.1999). . The officer's characterization of the incident after the fact is not controlling. However, this court understands that the term "take-down” — when used in this context — denotes an arrest. See Johnson v. State, 581 So. 2d 220, 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). In sports, the term "takedown” refers to "[a] move or maneuver in wrestling or the martial arts in which a standing opponent is forced to the floor.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1764 (4th ed.2000…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clark Dean Chaudoin v. State, 362 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- FOX v. State, 469 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Gueits v. State, 566 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Miller v. State, 545 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)