LibGuides: Florida Drug Prevention and Control Act by Derek Goldstein: Supreme Court cases

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Florida is the highest court in Florida. The Supreme Court's rulings must be followed by all jurisdictions.

Possesion

In this case we consider the constitutionality of the provisions of chapter 893, Florida Statutes (2011), the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, that provide that knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element of any offenses under the chapter but that the lack of such knowledge is an affirmative defense.

State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 2012)

State v. Adkins

Whether the presumption that Possession of illicit drugs satisfies knowledge

The 11th Circuit decided that Florida Statute 893.101 is constitutional. This statute allows for the jury to make a permissive presumption that possesiing illicit drugs satifies the knowledge element.

Shelton v. Secretary, Dept. of Corrections
A Florida state prisoner petitioned for federal habeas relief, challenging the constitutionality of a Florida statute that altered the mens rea requirement for state drug offenses.1 The district court, finding a due process violation, granted relief. We conclude that the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, and reverse.

Shelton v. Sec'y, Dept. of Corr., 691 F.3d 1348, 1349 (11th Cir. 2012)

Sale of Controlled Substance by Physician

The information filed against appellant charged that he “did unlawfully and feloneously sell or deliver (quaaludes) . . . by means of a prescription issued in bad faith and not in the course of professional practice. . . .” Through his plea of nolo contendere, appellant has conceded that he did in fact so sell or deliver quaaludes. It appears clear to us that such conduct constitutes a violation of 891.13(1)(a). The admitted facts do form an accurate basis for the charging of this felony. Status as a physician does not in some way immunize one from charges of selling. Rather, whether the physician's or other individual's conduct amounts to selling or merely dispensing is a function of the particular facts of the case. Appellant argues that this result is irrational in that it is susceptible to both felony and misdemeanor penalties, to be finally determined at the discretion of the prosecutor. The fact that certain conduct might violate more than one criminal provision does not necessarily render it invalid.

Cilento v. State, 377 So. 2d 663, 666 (Fla. 1979)

Cilento v. State

Subject Guide

Ulysses Jaen

Email Me

Contact:

1025 Commons Circle, Naples,
Florida 34119-1376

(239)687-5501 Tel.

Subjects: Veterans Memorial Law Library