State v. Adkins
96 So. 3d 412, 37 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 449, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 1365 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state legislature acts within its constitutional authority under the Due Process Clause when it defines a drug offense to not require the state to prove the defendant's knowledge of the illicit nature of a substance. Shifting the issue of knowledge to an affirmative defense that the defendant must raise does not unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof, provided the statute does not criminalize otherwise innocent or passive conduct.
Facts:
- In the cases of Chicone v. State (1996) and Scott v. State (2002), the Florida Supreme Court interpreted Florida's drug statutes to include a 'guilty knowledge' element, requiring the prosecution to prove a defendant knew of the illicit nature of a controlled substance.
- In direct response to these rulings, the Florida Legislature enacted section 893.101.
- This new statute explicitly removed knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance as an element of any drug offense under the chapter.
- The statute instead established that a defendant's lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance is an affirmative defense.
- The law also created a permissive presumption that a person in possession of a controlled substance knew of its illicit nature, which a jury could be instructed on if the defendant raises the affirmative defense.
- Following the enactment of section 893.101, multiple individuals were charged with drug offenses under this revised statutory framework.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida filed criminal charges under section 893.13 against defendants in forty-six separate cases.
- The defendants filed motions to dismiss the charges in the circuit court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, a state trial court.
- The defendants argued that the statute was facially unconstitutional for dispensing with a mens rea element for a serious felony.
- The circuit court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, ruling that the statute violated the Due Process Clauses of the Florida and U.S. Constitutions.
- The State, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Second District Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Second District Court of Appeal certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court, the state's highest court, for immediate resolution due to its great public importance.
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 a Florida statute that removes the element of 'knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance' from drug offenses and instead makes lack of such knowledge an affirmative defense violate the Due Process Clauses of the Florida and United States Constitutions?
Opinions:
Majority - Canady, J.
No. The Florida statute does not violate the Due Process Clauses of the Florida and United States Constitutions. Legislatures possess broad authority to define the elements of criminal offenses, and due process does not generally prohibit the creation of offenses lacking a guilty knowledge element, particularly in the context of public welfare regulations like drug control. This statutory scheme is constitutional because it does not criminalize wholly passive conduct, interfere with protected rights, or punish truly innocuous behavior. The statute still requires the State to prove the defendant knew of the presence of the substance, and the availability of an affirmative defense for lack of knowledge of its illicit nature provides a sufficient safeguard to prevent the conviction of a genuinely innocent person. This structure does not unconstitutionally shift the burden of proof, as the affirmative defense addresses a separate issue from the elements of the crime that the State must prove.
Dissenting - Perry, J.
Yes. The Florida statute violates the Due Process Clauses of the Florida and United States Constitutions. The statute shatters the bedrock principle of the presumption of innocence by forcing a defendant to prove their lack of knowledge. The majority's assertion that innocent possession is 'highly unusual' is flawed, as countless plausible scenarios exist where an innocent person could inadvertently possess a controlled substance. By making lack of knowledge an affirmative defense, the law unconstitutionally presumes guilt and shifts the burden of proof to the accused, forcing them to overcome a presumption that they had guilty knowledge. This creates a dangerous slippery slope that could allow legislatures to remove the intent requirement from other serious felonies, fundamentally undermining the administration of criminal law.
Concurring - Pariente, J.
No. The statute is not facially unconstitutional, but it presents serious constitutional concerns and may be unconstitutional as applied. The Act is facially constitutional for two narrow reasons: (1) the State must still prove the defendant's knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance, and (2) the defendant is expressly authorized to assert lack of knowledge of its illicit nature as an affirmative defense. These provisions narrowly save the Act from facial invalidity by reducing the risk of punishing truly innocent conduct. However, the majority's reasoning is flawed because modern drug laws carry severe felony penalties, unlike the minor public welfare offenses in the precedents cited. While the statute survives a facial challenge, an as-applied challenge could succeed for a defendant who possessed a substance unwittingly, as criminalizing such conduct with substantial penalties raises grave due process issues.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the broad power of a legislature to define the elements of a crime, even for serious felonies carrying substantial prison sentences. By upholding the shift of a traditional mens rea element to an affirmative defense, the court makes it significantly easier for the State to secure drug convictions. This places a new, substantial burden on defendants claiming innocent possession, requiring them to affirmatively prove their lack of knowledge rather than simply relying on the presumption of innocence. The strong dissents and narrow concurrence signal that while the statutory scheme is facially valid, its application to defendants who can demonstrate genuinely unwitting possession may be vulnerable to future as-applied constitutional challenges.
