DARNELL GARDNER, 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.
Darnell Gardner was convicted of selling cocaine and possession with intent to sell based on a hidden video recording of an undercover drug transaction. The Florida appellate court reversed his conviction, holding that the trial court erred by refusing to give a special jury instruction that the defendant could only be found guilty if he knew the substance was cocaine, where the defendant testified he believed he was selling counterfeit soap.
Where a defendant specifically asserts lack of guilty knowledge at trial and requests a jury instruction explaining that guilty knowledge means knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance, the failure to provide such instruction constitutes reversible error. The special instruction should have been provided because defendant testified he believed the substance was counterfeit soap, not cocaine.
[1] A defendant asserting lack of guilty knowledge at trial and requesting a jury instruction that explains guilty knowledge means knowledge of the illicit nature of the subs…
[2] Failure to provide a special jury instruction on guilty knowledge, when the defendant claims they believed the substance sold was not illicit, constitutes reversible erro…
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“Where a defendant specifically asserts lack of guilty knowledge at trial, and requests a jury instruction that explains that guilty knowledge means knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance, the failure to provide such an instruction to the jury constitutes reversible error.”
Establishes the legal standard for when a special knowledge instruction must be given 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 intelligenceDuring an undercover drug operation, defendant Gardner was arrested after a hidden video camera recorded him selling cocaine to an informant. Defendan…
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 Knowledge Of Illicit Nature Of Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Darnell Gardner (“defendant”) appeals his conviction for sale of cocaine and possession with intent to sell. We reverse.
In the course of an undercover drug operation, the defendant was arrested and charged with the sale of cocaine and possession with intent to sell. A hidden video camera in an informant’s car recorded the defendant selling cocaine to the informant.
The defendant testified at trial that another individual, one Louis Mack (“Mack”), offered to pay him $10.00 to “make a deal.” The defendant eventually agreed to carry out the transaction when Mack told him the substance to be delivered was counterfeit soap. The defendant stated he did not believe the substance he sold was cocaine. The officer in charge of the undercover operation also testified that in his experience, soap was often sold as if it were cocaine.
At the conclusion of the testimony, defense counsel requested that the jury be specially instructed that the defendant could only be found guilty if he knew that the substance sold was cocaine. Defense counsel argued the standard instruction did not convey that the defendant must be aware of the illicit nature of the substance and, specifically, that it was cocaine. The standard instruction provides that the jury must find the defendant had “knowledge of the presence of the substance.” The trial court denied the request.
Where a defendant specifically asserts lack of guilty knowledge at trial, and requests a jury instruction that explains that guilty knowledge means knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance, the failure to provide such an instruction to the jury constitutes reversible error. See Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1996); Oliver v. State, 707 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Simply stated, the special instruction should have been provided because the defendant testified that he believed the substance he sold was counterfeit soap, not cocaine. The failure to provide the special instruction under these circumstances requires reversal. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial with instructions that the trial court grant the defendant’s request for a special jury instruction on knowledge.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Benny Roberts v. State, 752 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…the jury part of its essential function. See Gerds v. State, 64 So. 2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953); cf. Brown v. State, 661 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Such errors are not harmless. See Croft v. State, 117 Fla. 832, 158 So. 454 (1935); Gardner v. State, 742 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Lambert v. State, 728 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), review denied, 741 So. 2d 1137 (Fla.1999). But see Ryals v. State, 716 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), review denied, 727 So. 2d 910 (Fla.1998).…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996)
- Oliver v. State, 707 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)