Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...the state failed to prove an essential element of the crime. The district court affirmed Purifoy's conviction. Although agreeing with the state's expert that stems are not "mature stalks", it held that the definitional issue was "immaterial" because Section 893.10(1), Florida Statutes (1975), expressly relieves the state of negating "any exemption or exception" in the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, Chapter 893, Florida Statutes (1975)....

...fter excluding the weight of the piece of stem." [6] There are three questions presented in this case. The first is whether the exclusion of "mature stalks" in the statutory definition of cannabis is an "exemption or exception" within the meaning of Section 893.10(1)....

...The second is whether the state or a defendant has the burden of establishing the quantity of prohibited matter where it is mixed with non-prohibited matter. The third is whether stems are stalks within the purview of Section 893.02(2). 1. Although Section 893.10(1) does not define precisely the types of "exemption or exception" to which it applies, we had occasion to interpret the predecessor to this provision, Section 398.20, Florida Statutes (1967), in Falcon v....

...the prohibitions of the act. Section 893.08, entitled "Exceptions", permits retail sales of certain scheduled substances without a prescription under certain identified circumstances. It seems apparent that the exemptions and exceptions mentioned in Section 893.10(1) have reference to these various provisions of the law, which are in the nature of affirmative defenses to a prosecution for possession of a prohibited substance. [9] The crucial difference between an 893.02(2) exclusion and 893.10(1) exemption (or exception) is that one who claims the benefits of the latter in effect admits possession of the contraband but claims that his possession was expressly authorized by law. In contrast, defendants (such as Purifoy) who claim the benefit of the former deny that the matter in their possession is a prohibited substance. In other words, Section 893.10(1) provides an excuse for what would otherwise be criminal conduct, and *449 the burden of establishing that excuse properly rests as a matter of defense on the individual claiming it since there is nothing to excuse until the state has proven the elements of a crime....

...In the present case the State contends that it has no burden to prove the weight of the cannabis. The State argues that the burden is on the defendant to prove the weight of the marijuana to be less than five grams in order to make the offense a misdemeanor. To accomplish this the State relies upon Section 893.10(1), Florida Statutes (1973), which provides: "It shall not be necessary for the state to negative any exemption or exception set forth in this chapter in any indictment, information, or other pleading or in any trial, hearing, or other...

...For example, an exception to the crime of possession of a controlled substance under § 893.13(1)(e) is *689 that the controlled substance "... was lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his professional practice ..." Under § 893.10 it would not be necessary for the State to prove that the defendant did not have a valid prescription....

...that someone was criminally liable."). At this point in the case, Holzbacher has not come forward with evidence that he had a valid prescription for the deca. See Gunn v. State, 336 So.2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (noting by way of example that under section 893.10, if a defendant relied upon having a valid prescription as a defense to a charge of violating section 893.13(1)(e) (now numbered section 893.13(6)(a)), the defendant and not the state would bear the burden of proof)....

...a controlled substance which [he][she] lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice. Like all affirmative defenses and pursuant to § 893.10(1), Fla. Stai, the burden of going forward with evidence of the defense is upon the defendant. Fla. Stats. 893.10(1), 89S.13(6)(a), and 199.03(1) are silent, however, as to the burden of persuasion for the affirmative defense....

...Jury Instrs. in Criminal Cases—Report 2017-03, 238 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 2018). Next, the instructions that include the affirmative defense inference pertaining to lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance, see sections 893.101(2) and 893.101(3), Florida Statutes (2018), are revised consistent with the language previously authorized in instruction 25.7 (Possession of a Controlled Substance)....

...for a person to possess a controlled substance which [he] [she] lawfully obtained from a practitioner or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice. Like all affirmative defenses and pursuant to § 893.10(1), Fla. Stat., the burden of going forward with evidence of the “controlled substance was lawfully obtained” defense is upon the defendant. Fla. Stats. 893.10(1), 893.13(6)(a), and 499.03(1) are silent, however, as to the burden of persuasion for the affirmative defense....

...Give if applicable. - 14 -  Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may possess a substance. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...ol by another. Joint possession. Give if applicable. Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may possess a substance. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...Stat. “Deliver” or “delivery” means the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance, whether or not there is an agency relationship. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...(Defendant) brought a certain substance into Florida. 2. The substance was (specific substance alleged). 3. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...provide housing, meals, and one or more personal services for a period exceeding 24 hours to one or more adults who are not relatives of the owner or administrator. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...- 33 -  Joint possession. Give if applicable. Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may possess a substance. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...(Defendant) [acquired or obtained] [attempted to acquire or obtain] the substance by [misrepresentation] [fraud] [forgery] [deception] [subterfuge]. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...had joint control over the place where the substance was located, and the substance was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the defendant. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...control over the place where the substance was located, and the substance was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the defendant. - 45 -  Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...nce was located, and the substance was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the defendant. - 50 -  Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...had joint control over the place where the substance was located, and the substance was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the defendant. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...control over the place where the substance was located, and the substance was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the defendant. - 60 -  Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...had joint control over the place where the substance was located, and the substance was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the defendant. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...ndant. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if there is evidence that the defendant 1) did not know of the presence of the substance or 2) knew of the presence of the substance, but did not know of its illicit nature. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...had joint control over the place where the substance was located, and the substance was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the defendant. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...had joint control over the place where the substance was located, and the substance was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the defendant. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...ad joint control over the place where the substance was located, and the substance was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the defendant. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...had joint control over the place where the substance was located, and the substance was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the defendant. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...had joint control over the place where the substance was located, and the substance was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the defendant. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...present ability to direct its control by another. Joint possession. Give if applicable. Possession of an item may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may possess an item. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...present ability to direct its control by another. Joint possession. Give if applicable. Possession of an item may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may possess an item. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...present ability to direct its control by another. Joint possession. Give if applicable. Possession of an item may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may possess anitem. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...[Excluded from this definition is any device having communication capabilities which has been approved or issued by the department for investigative or institutional security purposes or for conducting other state business.] Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla....

...The State’s expert witness considered a stem to be the little side branches of the plant and a stalk to be the major stalk of the plant. Although we are of the opinion that to give the words mature stalks their usual and ordinary meaning, we would agree with the expert’s definition, it is immaterial here. Section 893.10(1), Florida Statutes (1975), expressly provides that it is not necessary for the State to negate any exception at trial, the burden of proof being upon the person claiming the exception....

...cit nature of the substance, and to add language that lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance is an affirmative defense. In Adkins , a majority of the Court held that the guilty knowledge element, in light of the express language in section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2011), is limited to knowledge of the presence of the substance sold, purchased, manufactured, delivered, or brought into the state....