SYLVESTER STARLING, 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.
The court held that the failure to instruct the jury on the knowledge element for sale or delivery of cocaine was not fundamental error when the defense's sole argument was misidentification.
Appellant was convicted of sale or delivery of cocaine and challenged the jury instructions. The only issue raised at trial was that the appellant was…
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 Sale Or Delivery Of Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, J.
Appellant challenges his conviction for sale or delivery of cocaine. He alleges that the trial court committed fundamental error in failing to instruct the jury on the essential knowledge element for sale or delivery of cocaine as required by Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1996).1 The only issue raised during trial was that appellant was not the person who sold the cocaine.
In Davis v. State, 839 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), reh’g denied, 839 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), the Fourth District found no fundamental error in a similar set of facts:
Chicone requires that, where a defendant requests it, the jury must be instructed that the defendant have knowledge that the substance is illegal. In this case the instruction was not requested, but defendant argues that it was fundamental error not to give it. Because guilty knowledge was not an issue in this case, in that the only position taken by the defendant was that he was not the person who sold the cocaine to the informant, any error in not giving a guilty knowledge instruction would not rise to the level of fundamental error. State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla.1991). We therefore affirm.
Id.
As in Davis, defense counsel argued the identification was unreliable; guilty knowledge was not an issue at trial. Thus, any error in not giving the guilty knowledge or Chicone instruction, did not rise to the level of fundamental error. Affirmed.
BOOTH and KAHN, JJ., concur. . Knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is no longer an element of the offenses of possession, or sale or delivery of a controlled substance for offenses committed after May 13, 2002. Section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002). Appellant committed his offense prior to the effective date of section 893.101. See Norman v. State, 826 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding section 893.101 cannot be applied retroactively).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. State, 901 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2005)…Jones v. State, 857 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (fundamental error where defendant’s claim that cocaine residue was so minor as to not be usable or effectively measured constituted dispute regarding knowledge of illicit nature); Starling v. State, 842 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (no fundamental error where defendant only contested identity); Rhinehart v. State, 840 So. 2d 456, 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (no fundamental error where defendant “did not present any evidence or argue that he did not know the ill…
-
Garcia v. State, 854 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…s distinction between the failure to instruct on an element that is disputed — which constitutes fundamental error — and the failure to instruct on an element that is not disputed — which does not constitute fundamental error. See Starling v. State, 842 So. 2d 992, 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that failure to give guilty knowledge instruction was not fundamental error where “[t]he only issue raised during trial was that [defendant] was not the person who sold the cocaine”); Davis, 839 So. 2d at 735 (holdi…
-
Byrd v. State, 893 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Garcia v. State, 854 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), review granted, 870 So. 2d 821 (Fla.2004); Starling v. State, 842 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). As in Garcia, we certify direct conflict with Goodman v. State, 839 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). CASANUEVA and KELLY, JJ., and DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge, Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- D'Angelo v. State, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Batraville Vincent Delva, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991)
- Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996)
- Norman v. State, 826 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Damien Davis v. State, 839 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)