Goldsby v. State of Florida

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 5, 2024
Docket2022-3133
StatusPublished

This text of Goldsby v. State of Florida (Goldsby v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goldsby v. State of Florida, (Fla. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D2022-3133 _____________________________

CHRISTOPHER A. GOLDSBY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Christopher N. Patterson, Judge.

June 5, 2024

LONG, J.

Appellant, Christopher Goldsby, was convicted of trafficking in methamphetamine and heroin. Goldsby challenges the trial court’s decision to not instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance. The State responds, in part, that no evidence supported the instruction. We agree.

Knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element of trafficking in methamphetamine or heroin. § 893.101(2), Fla. Stat. Lack of such knowledge is, instead, an affirmative defense. A defendant is entitled to this affirmative defense instruction when he contends his “admittedly illegal conduct should not be punished.” State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412, 423 (Fla. 2012). The jury instruction must be given “if any evidence supports the theory, irrespective of how weak the evidence is.” Barnes v. State, 108 So. 3d 700, 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (citing Quick v. State, 46 So. 3d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).

Goldsby did not testify, and no other evidence supports the affirmative defense that he did not know the nature of the substance. Instead, the defense theory stressed that Goldsby did not knowingly possess the substances. That is, he challenged possession, not knowledge of the nature of the substance. Goldsby, therefore, was not entitled to a jury instruction on the lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of controlled substances.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Richard M. Bracey III, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert Charles “Charlie” Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Quick v. State
46 So. 3d 1159 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Barnes v. State
108 So. 3d 700 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
State v. Adkins
96 So. 3d 412 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Goldsby v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldsby-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2024.