ACEY WALKER, 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.
Walker was convicted of selling marijuana and challenged the trial court's exclusion of expert testimony about cannabis varieties. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the marijuana statute covers all cannabis species and varieties, and the excluded testimony would have been irrelevant since the defense did not contest whether the drug was a prohibited cannabis type.
The trial court did not commit reversible error in excluding the expert testimony. The marijuana statute encompasses all species and varieties of cannabis, not just cannabis sativa L, and provides sufficient notice of what conduct is prohibited. The excluded testimony would have been merely descriptive of cannabis varieties rather than contesting whether the subject drug was a prohibited cannabis type.
[1] A statute defining "cannabis" to include all varieties of the species Cannabis sativa, L. …
[2] Expert testimony regarding the polytypic nature of cannabis is inadmissible when the defense fails to proffer that the subject marijuana is not a variety of cannabis list…
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“the statute does not limit itself to cannabis sativa L; but, to the contrary, refers to any other species or varieties of cannabis”
Establishes that Florida's marijuana statute encompasses all cannabis types, not just the specific species charged
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAcey Walker was charged with selling cannabis sativa L in violation of Florida law. At trial, the defense sought to call Dr. Monroe Birdsey, a biology…
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 Relevance Of Expert Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
HAVERFIELD, Judge.
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, was charged by information with the sale of marijuana in violation of § 893.13, Fla. Stat. After a jury trial, defendant was found guilty and then placed on probation for five years.
On appeal, defendant urges as reversible error the entry by the trial court of an order granting the state’s motion to exclude expert testimony regarding the polytypic nature of cannabis. Appellant was charged with the sale of cannabis sativa L and during the trial defense counsel desired to call as an expert witness one Dr. Monroe Birdsey, a professor of biology, who would testify that in addition to can nabis sativa L, there exists other varieties such as cannabis indica or cannabis ruder-alis. The trial judge determined that § 893.02(2), Fla.Stat. which defines cannabis did not specifically except cannabis indica, cannabis ruderalis or the like and, therefore, granted the above motion of the state.
After a careful reading of § 893.-02(2),1 we conclude that the statute does not limit itself to cannabis sativa L; but, to the contrary, refers to any other species or varieties of cannabis. Furthermore, the statute provides a sufficient description of what was intended to be prohibited to give notice to all persons of the illegality of the actions of the defendant. See United States v. Gaines, 489 F. 2d 690 (5th Cir. 1974) and cases cited therein.
Further, the defense made no proffer that Professor Birdsey would testify that the nature of the subject marijuana was not a variety of the cannabis listed under the statute so it appears that the professor’s testimony in effect merely would be a dissertation on the varieties and species of cannabis, or “A rose by any other name would still be a rose.”
Hence, we find the trial judge did not commit reversible error in excluding testimony of the polytypic nature of cannabis. Cf. Grissom v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 57.
For the reasons cited thereinabove, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. “893.02 Definitions
The following words and phrases as used in this chapter shall have the following meanings, unless the context otherwise requires:
* * * * *
“ (2) ‘Cannabis’ means all parts of the plant of the species Cannabis sativa, L., including all varieties thereof, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant; fiber produced from the stalks; oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant; any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake ; or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.” [Emphasis Supplied]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hamilton v. State, 366 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1978)…atter which she tested was [*12] cannabis or in refusing to grant a judgment of acquittal where the state failed to prove that the species of cannabis tested was Cannabis Sativa L. Nelson v. State, 319 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Walker v. State, 318 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court. It is so ordered. ENGLAND, C. J., and BOYD, OVER-TON, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents with an opinion. . Transcript of testimony e…
-
Wright v. State, 351 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…t the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake; or the [*1130] sterilized seeds of the plant which is incapable of germination.” Section 893.02(2) proscribes cannabis indica, cannabis ruderalis, as well as cannabis sativa L. Walker v. State, 318 So. 2d 519 (Fla.3rd DCA 1975); Nelson v. State, 319 So. 2d 154 (Fla.2nd DCA 1975). However, by definition, “cannabis” does not include the mature stalks or sterilized seeds of the plant or products derived from them. The tests for cannabis are not complex. 13…
-
Theo George Fotianos v. State, 329 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…refers to any other species or varieties of cannabis. In addition, the statute provides a sufficient description of what was intended to be prohibited to give notice to all persons of the illegality of the actions of the defendants. Walker v. State, 318 So. 2d 519 (Fla.App.3d, 1975). [*401] The court did not err in allowing a chemist to testify that the vegetable matter he examined was marijuana. The responsibility of determining the qualifications and range of subjects on which an expert witness may be allow…
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Gaines, 489 F.2d 690 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Grissom v. State, 237 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)