ELVERSHON WILLIAMS, 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.
Elvershon Williams was convicted of possession of cannabis with intent to sell, but the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on principal's liability without evidence that Williams aided or abetted anyone, and the prosecution wrongly argued the jury could convict based on Williams's intent to purchase rather than sell.
The trial court erred in instructing the jury on principal's liability without evidence supporting such a theory, and this error was compounded by the prosecution's erroneous argument that the jury could convict based on the defendant's intent to purchase. The conviction must be reversed because a buyer does not aid and abet a seller, and possession with intent to purchase is a separate statutory crime from possession with intent to sell.
[1] A trial court errs in giving a jury instruction on principals when there is no evidence presented at trial to support the instruction.
[2] A prosecutor's closing argument that misstates the law and misapplies it to the facts presented at trial can constitute reversible error.
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“While the trial court's instruction is a correct statement of the law of principals, no evidence was presented during the trial that appellant aided or abetted any person in selling or delivering cannabis.”
Establishes that although the legal principle was correct, the instruction was improper without evidentiary foundation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was charged with possession of cannabis with intent to sell. At trial, Williams's defense was that he intended to purchase the drugs rather t…
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 Possession With Intent To Sell cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Elvershon Williams appeals his conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell.
At trial, appellant’s defense to the crime was that he intended to purchase the drugs he possessed rather than sell them.
The trial court instructed the jury on a principal’s liability for the crime, explaining that the jury could find appellant guilty of possession with intent to sell or deliver if it found that appellant intended to and did in fact assist or encourage the person selling the cannabis. While the trial court’s instruction is a correct statement of the law of principals, no evidence was presented during the trial that appellant aided or abetted any person in selling or delivering cannabis.
The evidence -presented indicated that appellant was either the intended seller or intended purchaser, not an aid to either. Because there was no evidence to support the giving of the instruction, the trial court erred in giving it. See Butler v. State, 493 So. 2d 451, 452 (Fla.1986).
The error was compounded when the State, in its closing, erroneously argued that the jury could find appellant guilty of possession with intent to sell or deliver if it found that appellant intended to receive delivery of or purchase the drugs. Cf. Sobrino v. State, 471 So. 2d 1333, 1335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (stating, “Just as a buyer does not aid and abet a seller, so a receiver does not aid and abet a deliverer”); compare § 893.13(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003) (stating that “it is unlawful for any person to sell, manufacture, or deliver, or possess with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance”) with § 893.13(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (stating that “it is unlawful for any person to purchase, or possess with intent to purchase, a controlled substance”).
Under the evidence and in combination with the State’s erroneous argument, the giving of the principal instruction constitutes reversible error. See Sobrino, 471 So. 2d at 1335.
Therefore, appellant’s conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell is REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED for a new trial.
ERVIN, ALLEN AND POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pallin v. State, 965 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…ppellant could not possess the cocaine from his suppliers and co-conspirators unless they first possessed it; therefore, the evidence supports a conviction for conspiracy to purchase or possess cocaine with intent to purchase. Cf. Williams v. State, 908 So. 2d 1166, 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (reversing conviction for possession with intent to sell based on aiding or abetting, where “evidence presented indicated that appellant was either the intended seller or intended purchaser, not an aid to either.”). We rej…
-
Jackson v. State, 37 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…he same criminal conduct as the principal, not conduct which is the antithesis of the principal’s. Just as a buyer does not aid and abet a seller, so a receiver does not aid and abet a deliverer.” A similar analysis was applied in Williams v. State, 908 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), a decision by the First District Court of Appeal reversing a conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to sell due to an unwarranted instruction on principals. The First District explained that the defendant “was either…
Authorities Cited
- Butler v. State, 493 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1986)
- Sobrino v. State, 471 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)