STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM F. MCCARTNEY, III, 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.
Florida prosecuted defendant for first-degree felony murder under a statute allowing capital murder charges when death results from distribution of controlled substances, specifically listing Schedule I drugs and opium or its synthetic derivatives. The trial court dismissed the charge because methadone, though an opioid, is neither a Schedule I drug nor a synthetic derivative of opium, and the appellate court affirmed.
The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that methadone is not a synthetic derivative of opium or preparation of opium as required by the statute, and therefore cannot serve as the basis for a first-degree felony murder charge under section 782.04(l)(a)3.
[1] First-degree felony murder charges require proof that the unlawful distribution of a controlled substance enumerated under Florida Statutes § 893.03(1), cocaine, or opium…
[2] Methadone is not an opium or a synthetic, natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium for purposes of Florida's first-degree felony murder statute.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Defendant moved to dismiss arguing that methadone was not a Schedule I drug set out in section 893.03(1). The state acknowledged that methadone is not a Schedule I drug, but argued that it is a 'synthetic of opium' under section 782.04(l)(a)3.”
Establishes the core dispute over whether methadone qualifies as a synthetic opium derivative.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant sold methadone to the victim, who died from a methadone overdose. Defendant was charged with first-degree felony murder under section 782.04…
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 Proximate Cause Of Death cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant was charged with first-degree murder as a result of a death caused by an overdose of methadone which was sold to the victim by defendant. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, because methadone is not a drug enumerated under the statute which was the basis of the charge, and the state appeals. We affirm.
The charge was first-degree felony murder under 782.04(l)(a)3, Florida Statutes, which provides:
(l)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
* * *
*3273. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user, is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
Defendant moved to dismiss arguing that methadone was not a Schedule I drug set out in section 893.03(1). The state acknowledged that methadone is not a Schedule I drug, but argued that it is a “synthetic of opium” under section 782.04(l)(a)3.
The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing in which defendant presented the testimony of Dr. Rich Bateh, a clinical laboratory consultant in chemistry and toxicology. He was of the opinion that methadone is not an opium, a synthetic salt, compound or salt, compound derivative or preparation of opium. Nor is methadone a natural salt, compound, derivative or preparation of opium. Dr. Bateh classified methadone as an opioid, which means that it acts on the human body in a manner similar to opium or opium derivatives.
Dr. Gunther Hochhaus, a professor of pharmaceutics at University of Florida, testified on behalf of the state. He agreed that methadone is an opioid, which has a chemical structure entirely different from opiates such as morphine or heroin. He acknowledged that the College of Pharmacy at the University of Florida had produced a letter stating that methadone was a synthetic opium or a derivative of opium, but he concluded that the letter was scientifically incorrect. In his opinion there was no such thing as a synthetic of opium, because it is not feasible to synthesize opium.
In spite of the testimony of its own expert, the state argues that methadone is synthetic opium. We cannot agree. Although it is unnecessary to our conclusion, we would note that the legislature included methadone in the same statute, but rather than include it as a Schedule I substance under which appellee was charged, it included it as a Schedule II substance under section 893.03(2)(b)14.
Affirmed.
GROSS, C.J., POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Toro, 268 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
-
State v. Nelson, 268 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
-
State v. Tamas Harris, JR., 275 So. 3d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence