Hubbard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hubbard v. State

828 So. 2d 494, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15492, 2002 WL 31373676

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 23, 2002

DocketNo. 1D02-102

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 828 So. 2d 494 (Hubbard v. State) 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

Hubbard v. State, 828 So. 2d 494, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15492, 2002 WL 31373676 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of his conviction for felony possession of marijuana. He argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for a judgment of acquittal. We agree. Because the state failed to present evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case on the element of guilty knowledge — i.e., that appellant knew of the presence of the marijuana and its illicit nature — the trial court should have granted the motion for a judgment of acquittal. See, e.g., Scott v. State, 808 So.2d 166 (Fla.2002); Chicane v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996); Rutskin v. State, 260 So.2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). Accordingly, we reverse, and remand with directions that the trial court vacate the judgment of conviction and order placing appellant on probation and enter a judgment of acquittal.

[495]*495REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

MINER, KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of his conviction for felony possession of marijuana. He argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for a judgment of acquittal. We agree. Because the state failed to present evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case on the element of guilty knowledge — i.e., that appellant knew of the presence of the marijuana and its illicit nature — the trial court should have granted the motion for a judgment of acquittal. See, e.g., Scott v. State, 808 So.2d 166 (Fla.2002); Chicane v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996); Rutskin v. State, 260 So.2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). Accordingly, we reverse, and remand with directions that the trial court vacate the judgment of conviction and order placing appellant on probation and enter a judgment of acquittal.

[495]*495REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

MINER, KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

828 So. 2d 494, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15492, 2002 WL 31373676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubbard-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack