Garcia v. State

Rule of Law:

For drug possession offenses committed before the enactment of section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), when a defendant denies knowledge of the presence of an illegal substance in their possession, it implicitly places into dispute the element of knowledge of the illicit nature of that substance; therefore, the failure to instruct the jury on this element constitutes fundamental error warranting a new trial, even if the instruction was not specifically requested.

Facts:

• In the early morning hours of June 9, 2001, Pasco County Deputy Sheriff Joseph Irizarry observed Jorge Garcia driving erratically, including passing through a flashing yellow light without slowing, going off the road, and weaving onto the grassy shoulder.
• Deputy Irizarry stopped Garcia's vehicle, smelled alcohol, and observed Garcia had bloodshot eyes and slurred speech.
• After Garcia was arrested for driving under the influence, Deputy Wilkins searched Garcia's truck incident to the arrest and found an item resembling a softball wrapped in black electrical tape underneath the passenger's seat.
• Garcia told the deputies at the scene that he did not know what the item was, had not seen it before, and was unaware it was in his truck, adding that his truck had been stolen recently and that friends had been in it earlier that night.
• Subsequent tests by the FDLE crime laboratory determined that the off-white powder contained within the item was a mixture of methamphetamine.
• At trial, Garcia testified that on the night of his arrest, his truck had been used by friends at a party, had previously been stolen and recovered in a dirty condition, and that he did not put the taped item in the truck, know it was there, or know what it contained.

Procedural Posture:

• Jorge Garcia was charged by information with trafficking in methamphetamine, driving under the influence (DUI), and obstructing or resisting an officer without violence.
• Garcia moved for a judgment of acquittal on the trafficking charge at the close of the State's evidence and again at the close of all evidence, which the trial court denied.
• At the jury charge conference, Garcia objected to the standard jury instruction that permitted an inference of knowledge based on exclusive possession and proposed special instructions, but the trial court overruled the objection and rejected his proposals.
• The trial court instructed the jury on the elements of trafficking, including knowledge of the substance's illicit nature, and on the definition of possession, also including knowledge of the illicit nature for constructive possession.
• The trial court provided an instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple possession, but this instruction omitted any reference to the requirement that the defendant have knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance; Garcia did not object to this omission.
• During deliberations, the jury submitted a question asking for the difference between trafficking and possession of methamphetamine, to which the trial court reread the instructions for those offenses.
• The jury acquitted Garcia of trafficking but found him guilty of the lesser-included offense of possession of methamphetamine.
• Garcia renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal and moved for a new trial, both of which the trial court denied.
• Garcia appealed his conviction to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court), arguing insufficient evidence for knowledge and erroneous jury instructions.
• The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed Garcia's conviction, finding the instructional error was not preserved and was not fundamental error, but certified conflict with the decision in Goodman v. State, 839 So.2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).