AUGUSTINE ANTONIO LEDO, 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.
The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that knowledge of the substance's nature was an essential element of the crime and by admitting evidence of a previously acquitted marijuana charge.
[1] Knowledge of the nature of a substance is an essential element of a drug trafficking crime when the relevant statutory amendment has not yet taken effect.
[2] Evidence of a prior acquittal for a related offense is inadmissible when the lawful right of police to be in a certain location is not at issue.
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 intelligenceThe defendant was arrested for cocaine trafficking after police found cocaine in a car he was driving. The defendant claimed he had no knowledge of th…
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 Trafficking In Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the defendant’s cocaine trafficking conviction and order a new trial based on the following analysis.
The defendant was driving a car which police stopped. Upon observing a marijuana cigarette in the vehicle, the police officer undertook a search, found a cardboard box containing cocaine and arrested the defendant. At trial the defendant answered a cocaine trafficking charge with the defense that the car he was driving belonged to his sister-in-law and that he had no knowledge concerning the nature of the substance which was found inside the box. The defendant was convicted of the charge and now appeals.
We hold that the trial court reversibly erred in refusing to instruct the jury that knowledge of the nature of the substance the defendant possessed was an essential element of the crime. State v. Dominguez, 509 So. 2d 917 (Fla.1987). While the 1987 statutory amendment to section 983.12, Florida Statutes, may well abrogate the Dominguez rule, that statute had not been adopted and did not take effect until after the crime in this case had been committed. Accordingly, it is not controlling here. Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 53 L.Ed.2d 344, reh’g denied, 434 U.S. 882, 98 S.Ct. 246, 54 L.Ed.2d 166 (1977).
The trial court further erred in admitting evidence, over defense objection, concerning the marijuana found in the car where the defendant had already been acquitted of a marijuana possession charge. It was not necessary for evidence of that charge to be admitted since the lawful right of the police to be where they were when the cocaine was discovered was not at issue at the time of trial. That issue had already been resolved at a previous motion to suppress hearing. See Heuring v. State, 513 So. 2d 122 (Fla.1987); Walker v. State, 567 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Cf. Wells v. State, 477 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (no “probable cause exception” to the hearsay rule).
Based on the foregoing, the defendant’s conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arboleda v. State, 645 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…2d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Here, the defendant’s testimony directly concerned his intent to traffic in cocaine. This court also previously has noted that the 1987 amendment to section 983.12 may well have abrogated the Dominguez rule, Ledo v. State, 587 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), contradicting the State’s argument that the crime’s elements were sufficiently covered by the instructions given. Because the trial court committed reversible error in the failure to give a portion of the standard jury instructi…
Authorities Cited
- Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 (U.S. 1977)
- State v. Fundora, 513 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1987)
- Frederick A.R. Heuring v. State, 513 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1987)
- State v. Dominguez, 509 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 1987)
- Jones v. State, 477 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Dawkins v. Nabisco, Inc., 434 U.S. 882 (U.S. 1977)
- Stencel Aero Eng'g Corp. v. United States, 434 U.S. 882 (U.S. 1977)
- Walker v. State, 567 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)