LEROY BRUCE, 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.
Bruce was convicted of possession of crack cocaine with intent to sell after police found thirteen individually wrapped rocks. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the quantity, individual packaging, and expert testimony regarding typical drug dealer profiles sufficiently established intent to distribute rather than personal use.
The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to sell. The combination of the quantity of cocaine (thirteen rocks), the individual plastic baggie packaging, and expert testimony from a narcotics officer regarding typical drug dealer profiles provided more than sufficient evidence to justify the jury's conclusion that Bruce intended to distribute the cocaine.
[1] The quantity of drugs possessed, individually wrapped, coupled with expert testimony from a narcotics officer, is sufficient evidence to support a jury's conclusion that…
[2] Expert testimony regarding drug packaging and quantity can establish intent to distribute, even when the defendant claims personal use.
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 fact that the defendant had as many as thirteen rocks, individually wrapped in clear plastic baggies, coupled 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.”
Establishes the court's holding that the combination of quantity, packaging, and expert testimony sufficiently supports the intent-to-distribute conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBruce was observed attempting to hide thirteen rocks of crack cocaine. Each rock was individually wrapped in clear plastic baggies. An experienced nar…
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 Possession With Intent To Sell cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
Bruce was observed attempting to hide thirteen rocks of crack cocaine and was convicted of possession with intent to sell the contraband. Although he concedes his guilt of simple possession, his primary point is that the evidence is insufficient to justify the conclusion that he intended to sell the cocaine, rather than use it personally. We disagree.
The fact that the defendant had as many as thirteen rocks, individually wrapped in clear plastic baggies, coupled 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 merely possessed the drugs for his own use.”); Stoudermire v. State, No. 05-90-01081-CR, 1991 WL 219522, at *6 (Tex.App. Oct. 29, 1991) (“Officer McCoy testified that Stoudermire did not fit the typical user profile. He stated that Stoudermire’s possession of thirteen rocks 1 is more consistent with a drug dealer profile. His expert testimony can be used to support the conviction.”), review refused (Tex.Crim.App. February 12, 1992); Spriggs v. United States, 618 A. 2d 701, 704 (D.C.App.1992) (“As the government’s expert testified, the quantity, packaging, and value of the drugs possessed by appellant (thirteen separate packets — eight packets of heroin and five packets of cocaine — worth approximately $470.00) was more consistent with an intent to distribute than with personal use.”); see Baten v. State, 579 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), review denied, 589 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1991); K.J. v. State, 557 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Compare McCullough v. State, 541 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (small quantity alone insufficient to prove intent to sell); C.L.L. v. State, 566 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (evidence insufficient in absence of expert police testimony that quantity and packaging of drugs were indicative of intent to sell).
Affirmed.
. This case presents an a fortiori situation, because the thirteen rocks in Stoudermire were in one single bag, rather than, as here, separately wrapped as if for sale.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Lewis v. State, 754 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…uld properly testify as expert witness regarding packaging practices of drug dealers and users and the amounts of drugs typically carried by each group, but was instructed not to testify regarding defendant’s intent to sell cocaine); Bruce v. State, 616 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (expert testimony and 13 individually wrapped packages of cocaine were sufficient to support conviction for possession with intent to sell). In the case at bar, the arresting officer never observed Appellant trying to sell or del…
-
Antwain Gamble v. State, 644 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…for conviction), review denied, 589 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1991). Other than the amount, there was nothing unusual about the way the rock cocaine was packaged to suggest that it was for sale or delivery and not for personal consumption. Cf. Bruce v. State, 616 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (expert testimony and 13 individually wrapped packages of cocaine were sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to sell). Gamble was convicted based upon the testimony of Agent Rocque that the amount was incon…1 / 4
-
Eli Scarlett v. State, 704 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…tat. (1995). Courts have long recognized that a police officer, when properly qualified as an expert, may testify regarding whether drugs were intended for personal use or for sale, based on the amount and packaging of the drugs. See Bruce v. State, 616 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (evidence was sufficient to justify the jury’s conclusion that defendant intended to sell the cocaine where defendant had thirteen rocks, individually wrapped in clear plastic baggies, and the state presented the expert testimony…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Worth Moses McCULLOUGH v. State, 541 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- K.M. v. State, 545 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- C.L.L. v. State, 566 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Baten v. State, 579 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- K.J. v. State, 557 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)