Summary
The Supreme Court of Florida held that guilty knowledge, including knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance, is an element of possession. The court ruled that a jury instruction on this element was required even when the defense presented no evidence, and that the trial court's failure to give the instruction was not harmless because the evidence supported the defendant's lack of knowledge. The court approved the Second District Court of Appeal's decision remanding for a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Chicone v. State receded from State v. Medlin's treatment of knowledge in actual-possession cases.
- Whether the Chicone guilty-knowledge instruction applies when the defense presents no evidence.
- Whether Chicone created a new element of the offense of possession of a controlled substance.
Holdings
- Chicone did not recede from Medlin. The Medlin presumption that knowledge may be inferred from personal possession remains applicable to actual and exclusive constructive-possession cases, but the State proceeds at its own peril when other evidence tends to negate the presumption.
- A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction requiring proof of guilty knowledge even when the defense presents no evidence, so long as the issue is supported by the evidence and is raised as a defense.
- Chicone did not create a new element. Knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance has always been an implicit component of the knowledge element of possession of an illegal substance.
Key quotations
“As we stated in Chicone, guilty knowledge, including knowledge of the illicit nature of the drug possessed, is an element of the crimes of possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia.” (65)
“Because it is an element of the crime, the defendant is entitled to an instruction whether the defense presents evidence or not.” (65)
Factual background
Williamson was found carrying a small refrigerator taken from a fire-damaged, boarded-up house. A search revealed pills marked "Tylenol," with the word "codeine" printed beneath it in lettering that the crime-lab analyst could read only with a microscope. Williamson admitted taking the pills but argued that he did not know they contained a controlled substance. The defense presented no evidence but raised lack of knowledge in closing argument and requested a jury instruction requiring the State to prove knowledge of the drug's illicit nature.
Procedural history
Williamson was convicted in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of burglary, possession of a controlled substance, and petit theft. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the burglary conviction by directing an acquittal and held that the trial court erred in refusing a Chicone instruction on knowledge of the illicit nature of the pills; it certified three questions of great public importance. The Supreme Court of Florida approved the Second District's decision concerning the controlled-substance conviction and remanded for a new trial on that charge.
Remand instructions
The Supreme Court approved the Second District's decision remanding for a new trial on the charge of possession of a controlled substance.