MICHAEL CLEMENTE JOHNSON, 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.
Florida's cocaine sale statute does not violate substantive due process by omitting guilty knowledge as an element, because the legislature explicitly provided in section 893.101 that lack of knowledge of the controlled substance's illicit nature is an affirmative defense rather than an element of the crime.
A statute criminalizing sale or delivery of cocaine without requiring guilty knowledge as an element does not violate substantive due process when the legislature has explicitly stated that lack of knowledge is an affirmative defense.
[1] A statute criminalizing drug offenses need not include guilty knowledge as an element when the legislature has explicitly provided by statute that lack of knowledge of th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Clemente Johnson was convicted of sale or delivery of cocaine under Florida Statutes section 893.13(l)(a)(l).…
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 Regulatory Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was convicted of sale or delivery of cocaine, as proscribed by section 893.13(l)(a)(l), Florida Statutes. In this appeal he challenges the constitutionality of that statute, in that it makes the offense a felony without requiring that guilty knowledge be an element of the crime. Relying on language in Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 114 S.Ct. 1793, 128 L.Ed.2d 608 (1994), and Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996), the appellant argues that this offends substantive due process. Staples and Chicone referred to regulatory offenses in the public welfare, and the level of punishment thereunder, in discussing principles of statutory construction where there has not been a clear expression of legislative intent as to whether guilty knowledge is an element of a crime. But in response to Chicone and Scott v. State, 808 So.2d 166 (Fla.2002), the Florida legislature clearly expressed its intent in section 893.101, Florida Statutes, by stating that “knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance” is not an element of an offense under chapter 893, and that instead lack of such knowledge is an affirmative defense. That provision has been upheld in other cases upon due process challenges. See e.g. Harris v. State, 932 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). The appellant’s due process challenge is likewise without merit.
AFFIRMED.
HAWKES, C.J., and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Flagg v. State, 74 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…This exact same argument has been rejected many times by this court and the other district courts of appeal. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 45 So. 3d 14, 16 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing cases), rev. denied, 53 So. 3d 1022 (Fla.2011); Johnson v. State, 37 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), rev. denied, 51 So. 3d 465 (Fla.2010); Wright v. State, 920 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), rev. denied, 915 So. 2d 1198 (Fla.2005). Flagg acknowledges this contrary authority, but contends that we should recede from our prior de…
-
Jasper Little v. State, 77 So. 3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
-
State v. Washington, 114 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…rmative defense that may be raised by the defendant, constitutional due process challenges were raised and ultimately rejected by the appellate courts across the state. See e.g., Williams v. State, 45 So. 3d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Johnson v. State, 37 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Harris v. State, 932 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Taylor, 929 So. 2d at 665; Tolbert v. State, 925 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Wright v. State, 920 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Smith v. State, 901 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 4th…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (U.S. 1994)
- Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996)
- Scott v. State, 808 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2002)
- Mose Harris v. State, 932 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)