Chicone v. State
1996 WL 607302, 684 So. 2d 736 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To convict a defendant for possession of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia under Florida law, the State must prove the defendant had guilty knowledge, meaning they knew of the illicit nature of the items in their possession.
Facts:
- Jerry Jay Chicone, III, was in possession of a substance.
- The substance was identified as cocaine, a controlled substance under Florida law.
- Chicone was also in possession of an object.
- The object was identified as drug paraphernalia.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Jerry Jay Chicone, III, in a state trial court with possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Chicone's motion to dismiss the information for failing to allege the element of knowledge was denied.
- A jury convicted Chicone on both counts.
- Chicone, as appellant, appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed Chicone's convictions, holding that knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance was not an element the State had to prove.
- Chicone, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida, which accepted jurisdiction due to a conflict among the district courts of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the crime of possessing a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia under Florida law require the State to prove that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of the substance possessed?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Anstead
Yes, the crime of possessing a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia requires the State to prove that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of the substance possessed. The court reasoned that criminal statutes are typically construed to include a 'mens rea' or guilty knowledge requirement, rooted in common law principles. The legislature's silence on the term 'knowingly' in the simple possession statutes does not eliminate this element, especially for felony offenses with significant penalties, which are not typically treated as strict liability public welfare offenses. The court held that interpreting the statute to dispense with scienter would criminalize a broad range of innocent conduct, such as that of a mail carrier unknowingly delivering a package containing drugs. The court distinguished its prior ruling in 'State v. Medlin,' explaining that 'Medlin' stands for the proposition that knowledge can be inferred from actual possession, not that knowledge is an unnecessary element. Therefore, to safeguard innocent individuals and adhere to foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, the State must prove the defendant was aware of the illicit character of the items possessed.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a long-standing ambiguity in Florida drug possession law by firmly establishing guilty knowledge of the item's illicit nature as an essential element of the offense. It aligns Florida's approach with the majority of jurisdictions and the principles of common law that disfavor strict liability for serious crimes. The ruling has a significant practical impact, as it requires prosecutors to prove a defendant's culpable mental state and entitles defendants to a specific jury instruction on this element if requested. This clarification strengthens due process protections for individuals who might possess contraband without awareness of its illegal character.
