STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DANIEL HUBBARD, 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 appealed the dismissal of drug sale charges against Daniel Hubbard, who acted as a go-between in a controlled buy operation. The District Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of three sale counts, holding that Hubbard's actions in arranging the transaction and quoting prices constituted sufficient involvement to implicate him as a principal in the sale, despite receiving no compensation.
Hubbard's participation was sufficient to implicate him as a principal in the commission of the offense of sale of marijuana. His quotation of price and his bringing together of the buyers and seller constitute sufficient involvement, and compensation from the buyer is not determinative of criminal liability for aiding and abetting.
[1] A person can be convicted as a principal for aiding and abetting a drug sale even if they receive no compensation from the seller.
[2] Active complicity in arranging a drug sale, including introducing buyers to sellers and quoting prices, is sufficient to establish guilt as a principal.
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“Though he received no compensation from the seller, his active complicity clearly aided and abetted the commission of a criminal offense. In fact, the evidence is undisputed that the sales would not have occurred but for respondent's arrangements.”
Supreme Court's holding in Dent establishing that compensation from seller is not determinative of aiding and abetting liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHubbard served as a go-between in a controlled buy operation involving three undercover police officers. He brought the officers to his brother's apar…
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 Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
This appeal is taken by the State from an order dismissing charges of sale and possession of marijuana against the appel-lee, Daniel Hubbard. Count IV, charging possession, was dismissed after the State stipulated that a prima facie case for possession did not exist.
With respect to the remaining three counts, the factual basis on which the appellee moved to dismiss was provided in the depositions of three police officers. According to the deposi tions the appellee served as a go-between in a “controlled buy” transaction. He brought the three police officers, acting under cover, to his brother’s apartment, where each of the officers purchased a bag of marijuana from the brother. The appellee also quoted the price per bag to the officers. Aside from these two acts, the appellee did not participate in the actual purchase, nor did he receive any compensation from any of the participants.
The lower court reluctantly dismissed the three counts of sale solely on the basis of Dent v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 301 So. 2d 475, a case factually similar to the one at bar. In the Dent case, the defendant, also a go-between, received compensation from the buyer but not from the seller. The First District reversed his conviction on appeal holding that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of sale of drugs.
However, this decision1 was quashed because of its inconsistency with the law in Florida pertaining to aiding and abetting. State v. Dent, Fla.1975, 322 So. 2d 543. See Fla.Stat. § 776.011 (1973); State v. Roby, Fla.1971, 246 So. 2d 566. The Supreme Court stated in Dent:
“Though he received no compensation from the seller, his active complicity clearly aided and abetted the commission of a criminal offense. In fact, the evidence is undisputed that the sales would not have occurred but for respondent’s arrangements.” 322 So. 2d at 544.
Appellee attempts to distinguish the facts in the case at bar from those in the Dent case. He contends that since he received no compensation whatsoever, and merely introduced the police officers to his brother, his participation was de minimus. We do not agree. It is clear from the quoted language in State v. Dent, supra, that the respondent’s compensation by the buyer was not determinative of the Supreme Court’s ruling. We think that appellee’s quotation of the price and his bringing together of the buyers and the seller constitute sufficient involvement to implicate him as a principal in the commission of the offense of sale of marijuana.
Accordingly, we reverse the order of the court below as it pertains to Counts I, II, and III. The State does not contest the court’s ruling as to Count IV, having stipulated to the absence of a prima facie case. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of Count IV.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
McNULTY, C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur. . State v. Dent, Fla.1975, 322 So. 2d 543, had not been published at the time the learned trial judge dismissed the counts.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gordon v. State, 528 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…defendant have been convicted and sentenced for both sale and possession counts of the same contraband in a single act. . See, e.g., State v. Dent, 322 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1975); Beasley v. State, 360 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); State v. Hubbard, 328 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). . Each and every element of the crime which the seller commits will be deemed to be committed by the broker under Chapter 777, Florida Statutes. See Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (1987 ed.) which provide:…
-
Stephenson v. State, 371 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…e proved by evidence of aiding and abetting. State v. Roby, 246 So. 2d 566 (Fla.1971). Arrangement or participation in the sale of drugs is sufficient for an aiding and abetting conviction. State v. Dent, 322 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1975); State v. Hubbard, 328 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). We hold the above facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case against appellant for sale, and thus, sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.190(C)(4). Appellant, however, is correct that nothing i…
-
Heatherington v. State, 388 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…[*1355] COWART, Judge. We have examined the record and find competent substantial evidence to support appellant’s conviction of delivery of phenobarbital and of conspiracy. State v. Dent, 322 So. 2d 543 (Fla.1975); State v. Hubbard, 328 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The trial court placed the appellant on probation with a condition that he serve fifty-one weeks in jail without gain time or furlough. Appellant cites Depson v. State, 363 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), as holding that the exc…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Roby, 246 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1971)
- State v. Dent, 322 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1975)
- Dent v. State, 301 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)