ISIAH GORDON, 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.
Isiah Gordon appealed his conviction for cocaine and drug paraphernalia possession, challenging the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the element of knowledge of the illicit nature of the substances. The Florida First District Court of Appeal agreed that this instruction was required and reversed for a new trial.
Yes. The trial court erred by refusing the requested jury instruction. When a defendant specifically requests an instruction on guilty knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance and paraphernalia, the trial court must expressly indicate to jurors that this is a required element of the crime that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] A federal court's declaration of unconstitutionality regarding a statute does not bind state courts when the statute at issue in the federal case is not the version appli…
[2] Amendments to a criminal statute do not apply retroactively to crimes committed before the amendments took effect.
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“In charging appellant with possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia, the State was required to prove that appellant had knowledge of the illicit nature of the items in his possession.”
Establishes that knowledge of illicit nature is an essential element of the crime that the prosecution must prove.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGordon was charged with possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia for offenses occurring on February 25, 2002. At trial, Gordon made timely request…
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 Guilty Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Isiah Gordon, appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. While appellant raises two issues on appeal, we find that only one issue has merit and warrants further discussion. Appellant contends that the trial court erred by refusing his requested jury instruction on knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance and paraphernalia. We agree and, therefore, reverse and remand for a new trial.
By information, the State charged appellant with one count of possession of cocaine and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, for offenses occurring on February 25, 2002. During his trial on these charges, appellant made timely oral and written requests for jury instructions on the element of knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance and of the illicit nature of the paraphernalia. The trial court denied both requests and instead instructed the jury according to the standard jury instructions.
In charging appellant with possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia, the State was required to prove that appellant had knowledge of the illicit nature of the items in his possession. See Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736, 744 (Fla.1996). A defendant has the right to have a court correctly and intelligently instruct the jury on the essential and material elements of the crime charged and required to be proven by competent evidence. See id. at 745 (citing Gerds v. State, 64 So. 2d 915, 916 (Fla.1953)). Thus, the supreme court determined in Chicane that, when specifically requested by a defendant, the trial court should expressly indicate to jurors that guilty knowledge means that the defendant must have knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance allegedly possessed. Chicone, 684 So. 2d at 745-46.1 Accordingly, appellant was entitled to have the jury instructed, as he had requested, on the element of guilty knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance and of the paraphernalia.
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
ERVIN, ALLEN and LEWIS, JJ., CONCUR. . The Legislature has now superseded Chi-cone by statute, declaring that knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance is no longer an element of the offenses of possession for offenses committed after May 13, 2002. § 893.101, Fla. Stat. (2002). However, appellant committed his offense prior to the effective date of section 893.101, and the statute cannot be applied to him retroactively. See Starling v. State, 842 So. 2d 992, 993 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pigford v. State, 935 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…in Chicone enacted section 893.101, Florida Statutes, by which it declared that “knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance is no longer an element of the offenses of possession for offenses committed after May 13, 2002.” See Gordon v. State, 858 So. 2d 359, 360 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). As with the defendant in Gordon, however, Mr. Pig- [*96] ford was alleged to have committed the offenses in the instant case on March 29, 2002, prior to the enactment of section 893.101. As the statute cannot be applie…
Authorities Cited
- Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996)
- Gerds v. State, 64 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1953)
- Starling v. State, 842 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)