Scott v. State
808 So. 2d 166, 2002 WL 5498 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance as an essential element of the crime of possession. A trial court's failure to give a requested jury instruction on this element constitutes reversible error.
Facts:
- Bobby Scott was an inmate at a correctional facility.
- Contraband drugs were discovered inside an eyeglass case located within Scott's locker.
- Testimony indicated that Scott's locker was bent, which may have made it accessible to individuals other than Scott.
- The contraband was not found on Scott's person; he was not in actual, personal possession of the drugs.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Bobby Scott in a state trial court with introduction or possession of contraband in a correctional facility.
- At the conclusion of a jury trial, Scott's counsel orally requested a special instruction that the State must prove Scott knew of the illicit nature of the substance.
- The trial court denied the request for the special jury instruction.
- The jury convicted Scott as charged.
- Scott, as appellant, appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, arguing the trial court erred in denying his requested instruction.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding any error to be harmless, but certified three questions of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida.
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 State have the burden to prove a defendant's knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance as an element of the crime of possession, thereby entitling the defendant to a specific jury instruction on that element upon request?
Opinions:
Majority - Quince, J.
Yes. Knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an essential element of the crime of possession that the State must prove, and a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on this element upon request. The Court reaffirms its holding in Chicone v. State, establishing that 'guilty knowledge' includes both knowledge of the substance's presence and knowledge of its illicit nature. This element is part of the State's burden of proof and is not an affirmative defense for the defendant to raise. Therefore, failing to instruct the jury on an essential, disputed element of the crime is not harmless error. The court also clarified that the rebuttable presumption of knowledge established in State v. Medlin applies only to cases of actual, personal possession, not to cases of constructive possession like this one, where the drugs were found in a locker accessible to others.
Dissenting - Wells, C.J.
No. The majority's decision improperly creates an element of a crime, a power reserved for the Legislature, and creates unnecessary legal complications. The Court in Chicone v. State overstepped its authority by judicially writing the 'knowledge of illicit nature' element into the possession statute. The more logical and less problematic approach would be to treat lack of knowledge as an affirmative defense. Under this framework, the State would prove possession, which would create a presumption of knowledge under Medlin, and the defendant would then have the burden to rebut that presumption.
Dissenting - Harding, J.
The Court should not answer the certified questions because the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review. Defense counsel's request for the Chicone instruction was made orally and not submitted in writing, which is required by court rules to preserve the issue for appeal. By ruling on the merits, the majority disregards established precedent on preservation and encourages vague, unwritten requests that can 'sandbag' trial judges. Furthermore, the majority's opinion fails to clarify the law and instead adds to the confusion surrounding the applicability of the Medlin presumption in constructive possession cases.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the mens rea requirement for drug possession offenses in Florida by mandating that 'knowledge of the illicit nature' be treated as an essential element of the State's case. It clarifies that this is not an affirmative defense, placing the full burden of proof on the prosecution in every case. By restricting the State v. Medlin presumption of knowledge to cases of actual possession, the Court significantly strengthens defendants' rights in constructive possession cases, where knowledge is frequently a central and disputed issue. The ruling prompted the amendment of Florida's standard jury instructions to ensure this element is explicitly explained to jurors.
