TIMOTHY GAMMON, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• C.M. v. State, 83 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
  …a controlled substance, and the absence of any other evidence that C.M. used or intended to use the object to smoke marijuana, the finding of guilt for possession of [*951] drug paraphernalia cannot stand. Goodroe, 812 So. 2d at 588; Nixon v. State, 680 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Reversed and remanded with directions to enter a judgment of dismissal as to the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia. . The trial court determined that the school police officer could testify as an expert on the identif…
• Chandler v. State, 185 So. 3d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
  …gitimate purposes, and expert testimony concerning the item’s use. § 893.146, Fla. Stat. (2014). “The presence of even a minuscule quantity of drug residue is sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove the element of intent to use.” Nixon v. State, 680 So. 2d 506, 507 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (citing Steele v. State, 561 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)). However, if the alleged paraphernalia tests negative for drug residue, the State must introduce other evidence to demonstrate possession of the item with intent t…
• Lavertis Bernard Waters v. State, 694 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
  …drug residue on the device, nor were any drugs found on Waters at the time of his arrest. Waters argues that there was insufficient evidence of intent to use the device to ingest a controlled substance. We agree that our decision in Nixon v. State, 680 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), requires that we reverse on this count. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence for sale of cocaine is affirmed; we remand the misdemeanor offense of possession of drug paraphernalia to the trial court with instructions to vaca…

Authorities Cited

• Putt v. State, 527 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)