TOM SCARBOROUGH, 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.
Tom Scarborough was convicted of five methamphetamine-related offenses. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed four convictions but reversed the conviction for unlawful possession of acetone, finding the evidence insufficient to prove he actually possessed acetone.
The conviction for unlawful possession of acetone was reversed because the evidence was insufficient. The officer's testimony merely established that a container was present in the kitchen but did not prove what substance, if any, was in it or that Scarborough possessed acetone. The other four convictions were affirmed.
[1] A conviction for unlawful possession of a substance for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed…
[2] Evidence that a container was present in a kitchen is insufficient to prove a defendant possessed a specific substance within that container.
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“The only evidence regarding Mr. Scarborough's possession of acetone was the testimony of a law enforcement officer that 'there was a container in the kitchen that it was used in.' This testimony establishes only that a container was present. The state did not prove what, if anything, was in the container.”
Establishes the insufficient evidence for the acetone possession conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScarborough was adjudicated guilty of five offenses related to producing and trafficking methamphetamine. The only evidence of acetone possession 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 Motion For Judgment Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
Adjudicated guilty of five offenses related to producing and trafficking in methamphetamine, Tom Scarborough argues two points on direct appeal. As to the contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, we affirm without further discussion. But we agree the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction under section 893.149, Florida Statutes (2010), for unlawful possession of acetone for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine. Accordingly, we reverse that one conviction and the sentence imposed for it.
“We review de novo the trial court’s denial of a motion for [judgment of acquittal], to determine solely whether the evidence is legally sufficient.” Robinson v. State, 936 So.2d 1164, 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (citing Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002); Jones v. State, 790 So.2d 1194, 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (en banc)). “The legal test for determining whether a JOA should be granted is ‘whether after all conflicts in the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom have been resolved in favor of the verdict on appeal, there is substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment.’ ” Id. (quoting Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120, 1123 (Fla.1981)). In the present case, the state had the burden of proving, inter alia, that Mr. Scarborough possessed acetone at the time and place alleged. See § 893.149, Fla. Stat. (2010).
*798The only evidence regarding Mr. Scarborough’s possession of acetone was the testimony of a law enforcement officer that “there was a container in the kitchen that it was used in.” This testimony establishes only that a container was present. The state did not prove what, if anything, was in the container. This testimony was not, therefore, sufficient evidence on which the jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Scarborough possessed acetone on the date charged in the information. We reverse the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of unlawful possession of acetone for the purpose of manufacturing methamphetamine and reverse the conviction and sentence for that offense. The judgment of guilt and attendant sentences on the other four charges are affirmed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
LEWIS, C.J. and SWANSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002)
- Delbert Lee Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1981)
- Jones v. State, 790 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- DePIRRO v. State, 936 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)