In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—REPORT NO. 2013-05
This text of 153 So. 3d 192 (In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES—REPORT NO. 2013-05) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (Committee) has submitted proposed changes to the standard jury instructions and asks that the Court authorize the amended standard instructions for publication and use. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
In 2013, this Court authorized for publication and use amended Standard Criminal Jury Instructions 25.9-25.13, which pertain to various drug trafficking offenses. See In re Std. Jury Instrs. in Crim. Cases— Instrs. 25.9-25.13, 112 So.3d 1211 (Fla.2013). In our opinion in that case, we asked the Committee to “review jury instructions 25.2-25.8 and make a recommendation to the Court whether any amendments to those instructions are warranted in light of the Court’s decision here, or in light of [State v.] Adkins [96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012).]” 1 We also asked the Committee for a recommendation as to “whether instructions 25.9-25.13 should be amended in light of Smith v. United States, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 714, 184 L.Ed.2d 570 (2013).” In re Std. Jury Instrs. in Crim. Cases, 112 So.3d at 1212. 2 In response to our requests for recommendations on these points, the Committee has filed the current report proposing further amendments to the aforementioned instructions, proposing amendments to other standard instructions pertaining to drug offenses, and proposing two entirely new instructions. This Court directed that the proposals be published in The Florida Bar News. No comments have been filed with the Court in response to publication.
The Committee’s proposed changes affect the following existing criminal jury instructions: 25.2 (Drug Abuse — Sale, Purchase, Manufacture, Delivery, or Possession with Intent); 25.3 (Drug Abuse-Sale, Purchase, Delivery, or Possession in Excess of Ten Grams); 25.4 (Drug *193 Abuse — Delivery to or Use of Minor); 25.5 (Drug Abuse — Bringing into State); 25.6 (Drug Abuse — Contraband in Specified Locations); 25.7 (Drug Abuse — Possession); 25.8 (Drug Abuse — Obtaining Controlled Substance by Fraud, etc.); 25.9 (Trafficking in Cannabis); 25.10 (Trafficking in Cocaine); 25.11 (Trafficking in Morphine, Opium, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, Hydromorphone, [or] Heroin); 25.12 (Trafficking in Phencyclidine); 25.13 (Trafficking in • Methaqualone); 25.14 (Drug Abuse — Use or Possession of Drug Paraphernalia); 25.15 (Drug Abuse — Delivery, Possession with Intent to Deliver, or Manufacture with Intent to Deliver Drug Paraphernalia); 25.16 (Drug Abuse — Delivery of Drug Paraphernalia to a Minor); 25.17 (Contraband in County Detention Facility); and 25.18 (Contraband in Juvenile Facility). The Committee proposes that we also authorize for publication and use the following new instructions: 25. 20 (Possession of Contraband in or Upon the Grounds of a State Correctional Institution); and 25.21 (Introduction or Removal of Contraband into or from a State Correctional Institution). We authorize the proposed amended and new instructions for publication and use except as noted below.
In its report, the Committee states that it found the law was uncertain on the issue of whether “knowledge of presence” is a required element of certain drug offenses. With respect to certain offenses, the Committee found that “knowledge of presence” may or may not be an element. The Committee proposes to address this uncertainty by including optional instructions along with notes and comments to explain the issue.
Currently, Instruction 25.2 (Sale, Purchase, Manufacture, Delivery, or Possession with Intent) lists the following as element 3: “Defendant had knowledge of the presence of the substance,” preceded by an advisory note saying, “Give if possession is charged.” The Committee proposes to change the advisory note to read: “Give element # 3 if Possession with Intent to Sell, Purchase, Manufacture or Deliver is charged. It is unclear whether element # 3 must be given for Sale, Manufacture, Delivery, or Purchase of a Controlled Substance. See Comment section.”
Current Instruction 25.3 (Sale, Purchase, Delivery, or Possession in Excess of Ten Grams) includes as element 3, “Defendant had knowledge of the presence of the substance,” preceded by a note saying, “Give if possession is charged.” The Committee proposes to change the note to read: “Give element #3 if possession is charged. It is unclear whether element # 3 must be given for Sale, Purchase, or Delivery of a controlled substance. See Comment section.”
Instruction 25.4 (Delivery to or Use of a Minor) does not currently include “knowledge of presence” as an element. The Committee proposes to add it as element 4, reading, “Defendant had knowledge of the presence of the substance,” preceded by a note saying, “It is unclear whether element # 4 must be given for Delivery of a Controlled Substance. See Comment section.”
Instruction 25.5 (Bringing into State) currently includes as element 3: “Defendant had knowledge of the presence of the substance.” The Committee proposes adding a note preceding element 3 reading, “It is unclear whether element # 3 must be given. See Comment section.”
Instruction 25.6 (Contraband in Specified Locations) currently includes as element 4: “Defendant had knowledge of the presence of the substance.” The Committee proposes to add the following advisory notes: “Give element # 4 if Possession with Intent to Sell, Manufacture or Deliver is charged. It is unclear whether element *194 # 4 must be given for Sale, Manufacture, or Delivery of a Controlled Substance. See Comment section.”
With some variations in the language, the Committee proposes adding comments to all five of the above-listed instructions explaining the issue as follows:
Unlike the trafficking statutes, the statutes for these crimes do not contain the word “knowingly.” Also, the affirmative defense statute of section 893.101, Florida Statutes,, addresses only “knowledge of illicit nature” and not “knowledge of presence.” Because of case law, “knowledge of presence” is an element of possession, which is why [an instruction on knowledge of presence] must be given if the defendant is charged with [possession or possession with intent]. See State v. Oxx, 417 So.2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). However, there is an absence of case law as to whether “knowledge of presence” is an element of [other offenses covered by these five instructions] or whether “lack of knowledge of presence” is an affirmative defense. In the absence of case law, trial judges must decide this issue.
We decline to authorize the Committee’s proposed amendments to these five instructions insofar as the treatment of “knowledge of presence” is concerned.
In State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d at 414-16, this Court addressed a facial challenge to the constitutionality of section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2011). 3
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
PER CURIAM.
The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (Committee) has submitted proposed changes to the standard jury instructions and asks that the Court authorize the amended standard instructions for publication and use. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.
In 2013, this Court authorized for publication and use amended Standard Criminal Jury Instructions 25.9-25.13, which pertain to various drug trafficking offenses. See In re Std. Jury Instrs. in Crim. Cases— Instrs. 25.9-25.13, 112 So.3d 1211 (Fla.2013). In our opinion in that case, we asked the Committee to “review jury instructions 25.2-25.8 and make a recommendation to the Court whether any amendments to those instructions are warranted in light of the Court’s decision here, or in light of [State v.] Adkins [96 So.3d 412 (Fla.2012).]” 1 We also asked the Committee for a recommendation as to “whether instructions 25.9-25.13 should be amended in light of Smith v. United States, — U.S. —, 133 S.Ct. 714, 184 L.Ed.2d 570 (2013).” In re Std. Jury Instrs. in Crim. Cases, 112 So.3d at 1212. 2 In response to our requests for recommendations on these points, the Committee has filed the current report proposing further amendments to the aforementioned instructions, proposing amendments to other standard instructions pertaining to drug offenses, and proposing two entirely new instructions. This Court directed that the proposals be published in The Florida Bar News. No comments have been filed with the Court in response to publication.
The Committee’s proposed changes affect the following existing criminal jury instructions: 25.2 (Drug Abuse — Sale, Purchase, Manufacture, Delivery, or Possession with Intent); 25.3 (Drug Abuse-Sale, Purchase, Delivery, or Possession in Excess of Ten Grams); 25.4 (Drug *193 Abuse — Delivery to or Use of Minor); 25.5 (Drug Abuse — Bringing into State); 25.6 (Drug Abuse — Contraband in Specified Locations); 25.7 (Drug Abuse — Possession); 25.8 (Drug Abuse — Obtaining Controlled Substance by Fraud, etc.); 25.9 (Trafficking in Cannabis); 25.10 (Trafficking in Cocaine); 25.11 (Trafficking in Morphine, Opium, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, Hydromorphone, [or] Heroin); 25.12 (Trafficking in Phencyclidine); 25.13 (Trafficking in • Methaqualone); 25.14 (Drug Abuse — Use or Possession of Drug Paraphernalia); 25.15 (Drug Abuse — Delivery, Possession with Intent to Deliver, or Manufacture with Intent to Deliver Drug Paraphernalia); 25.16 (Drug Abuse — Delivery of Drug Paraphernalia to a Minor); 25.17 (Contraband in County Detention Facility); and 25.18 (Contraband in Juvenile Facility). The Committee proposes that we also authorize for publication and use the following new instructions: 25. 20 (Possession of Contraband in or Upon the Grounds of a State Correctional Institution); and 25.21 (Introduction or Removal of Contraband into or from a State Correctional Institution). We authorize the proposed amended and new instructions for publication and use except as noted below.
In its report, the Committee states that it found the law was uncertain on the issue of whether “knowledge of presence” is a required element of certain drug offenses. With respect to certain offenses, the Committee found that “knowledge of presence” may or may not be an element. The Committee proposes to address this uncertainty by including optional instructions along with notes and comments to explain the issue.
Currently, Instruction 25.2 (Sale, Purchase, Manufacture, Delivery, or Possession with Intent) lists the following as element 3: “Defendant had knowledge of the presence of the substance,” preceded by an advisory note saying, “Give if possession is charged.” The Committee proposes to change the advisory note to read: “Give element # 3 if Possession with Intent to Sell, Purchase, Manufacture or Deliver is charged. It is unclear whether element # 3 must be given for Sale, Manufacture, Delivery, or Purchase of a Controlled Substance. See Comment section.”
Current Instruction 25.3 (Sale, Purchase, Delivery, or Possession in Excess of Ten Grams) includes as element 3, “Defendant had knowledge of the presence of the substance,” preceded by a note saying, “Give if possession is charged.” The Committee proposes to change the note to read: “Give element #3 if possession is charged. It is unclear whether element # 3 must be given for Sale, Purchase, or Delivery of a controlled substance. See Comment section.”
Instruction 25.4 (Delivery to or Use of a Minor) does not currently include “knowledge of presence” as an element. The Committee proposes to add it as element 4, reading, “Defendant had knowledge of the presence of the substance,” preceded by a note saying, “It is unclear whether element # 4 must be given for Delivery of a Controlled Substance. See Comment section.”
Instruction 25.5 (Bringing into State) currently includes as element 3: “Defendant had knowledge of the presence of the substance.” The Committee proposes adding a note preceding element 3 reading, “It is unclear whether element # 3 must be given. See Comment section.”
Instruction 25.6 (Contraband in Specified Locations) currently includes as element 4: “Defendant had knowledge of the presence of the substance.” The Committee proposes to add the following advisory notes: “Give element # 4 if Possession with Intent to Sell, Manufacture or Deliver is charged. It is unclear whether element *194 # 4 must be given for Sale, Manufacture, or Delivery of a Controlled Substance. See Comment section.”
With some variations in the language, the Committee proposes adding comments to all five of the above-listed instructions explaining the issue as follows:
Unlike the trafficking statutes, the statutes for these crimes do not contain the word “knowingly.” Also, the affirmative defense statute of section 893.101, Florida Statutes,, addresses only “knowledge of illicit nature” and not “knowledge of presence.” Because of case law, “knowledge of presence” is an element of possession, which is why [an instruction on knowledge of presence] must be given if the defendant is charged with [possession or possession with intent]. See State v. Oxx, 417 So.2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). However, there is an absence of case law as to whether “knowledge of presence” is an element of [other offenses covered by these five instructions] or whether “lack of knowledge of presence” is an affirmative defense. In the absence of case law, trial judges must decide this issue.
We decline to authorize the Committee’s proposed amendments to these five instructions insofar as the treatment of “knowledge of presence” is concerned.
In State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d at 414-16, this Court addressed a facial challenge to the constitutionality of section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2011). 3 The lower court had held that the statute’s purported elimination of the requirement of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance as an element of offenses under chapter 893, Florida Statutes (2011), was a violation of the requirements of due process of law under the United States and Florida Constitutions. This Court reversed that decision. See Adkins, 96 So.3d at 412, 423. In its analysis of the constitutionality of 893.101, the plurality opinion said, “The statute does not eliminate the element of knowledge of the presence of the sub-stance_” Id. at 416. An opinion concurring in result found that the statute “eontinue[d] to require the State to prove that a defendant had knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance as an element of drug-related offenses.” Id. at 424 (Pariente, J., concurring in result). The effect of section 893.101 was to exclude “knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance” as an element of “any offense under this chapter.” In Adkins, in the process of finding the statute *195 constitutional, a majority of the Court found that “knowledge of the presence” continued to be an element of drug-related offenses. More recently, the Court observed:
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. [96 So.3d] at 423. Knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance is, under the statute, an affirmative defense.
In re Std. Jury Instrs. in Crim. Cases— Instrs. 25.9-25.13, 112 So.3d 1211, 1211 (Fla.2013).
We agree with the Committee that the issue of whether knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance is an element of a given offense may be a legal issue that must be decided based on the provisions of the particular statute, court decisions applying the statutes, and the circumstances of the case. But we do not agree that trial judges should be told that under certain circumstances the lack of knowledge of the presence of the substance should be treated as an affirmative defense. This is contrary to what we said in Adkins and In re Standard Jury Instructions. We therefore do not authorize those parts of the proposed amendments that address the treatment of “knowledge of presence” by indicating that under certain circumstances lack of knowledge of presence may be an affirmative defense. The notes and comments proposed by the Committee that address this point are not authorized for publication. 4
With the changes noted above, we authorize the amended instructions for publication and use as set forth in the appendix. New language is indicated by underlining, and deleted language is indicated by struck-through type. 5 In authorizing the publication and use of these instructions, we express no opinion on their correctness and remind all interested parties that this authorization forecloses neither requesting additional or alternative instructions nor contesting the legal correctness of the instructions. We further caution all interested parties that any comments associated with the instructions reflect only the opinion of the Committee and are not necessarily indicative of the views of this Court as to their correctness or applicability. The amended instructions as set forth in the appendix shall be effective when this opinion becomes final.
It is so ordered.
APPENDIX
25.2 DRUG ABUSE — SALE, PUR *196 CHASE, MANUFACTURE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, PURCHASE, MANUFACTURE, OR DELIVER
§ 893.13(l)(a) and (2)(a), Fla. Stat.
Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as “controlled substances.” (Specific substance alleged) is a controlled substance.
To prove the crime of (crime charged), the State must prove the following (applicable number) elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) [sold] [manufactured] [delivered] [purchased] [possessed with intent to [sell] [manufacture] [deliver] [purchase]] a certain substance.
[sold]
[purchased]
[manufactured]
[delivered]
[possessed-with intent to sell]
[possessed with intent to — pur- . chase]
[possessed with intent to-manufacture]
[possessed-with-intent to deliver] a certain substance*
2. The substance was (specific substance alleged).
Give if possession is charged.
3. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance.
Delivery of 20 Grams or Less of Cannabis without consideration is a misdemean- or. See § 893.13(3), Fla. Stat. If the State charges the felony of Delivery of More Than 20 Grams of Cannabis, the jury must make a finding as to the weight.
3. or 4. The cannabis weighed more than 20 grams.
Definitions. Give as applicable.
Cannabis. §§§ 893.02(3); 893.13(3); 893.13(6) (b), Fla. Stats.
Cannabis means all parts of any plant of the genus Cannabis, whether growing or not and the seeds thereof.
Sell.
“Sell” means to transfer or deliver something to another person in exchange for money or something of value or a promise of money or something of value.
Manufacture. § 893.02(13)(a), Fla. Stat.
“Manufacture” means the production, preparation, packaging, labeling or relabeling, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly. Manufacturing can be by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis. It can also be by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis.
Deliver. § 893.02(5), 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.
Possession.
To “possess — means to have-personal charge of or exercise the right of ownership, management, or control over — the thing possessed*
Possession may be actual-or-constructive
*197 There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and constructive possession.
Actual possession.
Actual possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance and:
a. The controlled substance is in the hand of or on the person, or
b. The controlled substance is in a container in the hand of or on the person,
or
c. The controlled substance is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.
Give-if applicable.
Mere proximity to a controlled substance is not sufficient to establish control over that controlled substance when it is not in a place over which the person has control.
Constructive possession.
Constructive possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance, the controlled substance is in a place over which the {defendant) person has control, and the person has the ability to control the substance or — in which the (defendant) has-concealed-it,
Give if applicable.
Mere proximity to a substance is not sufficient to establish control over that substance when the substance is in a place that the person does not control.
In order to establish (defendant’s) constructive possession of a controlled substance if — the controlled substance that was ⅛ in a place over- which the (defendant) [he][she] does did not have control, the State must prove the (defen-danfe) (1) knew that the substance was within [his][her] presence has-the control-over the controlled substance and (2) knowledge-that the-controlled substance was within-the (defendant’s) presence exercised control or ownership over the substance itself.
Joint possession.
Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be aware of the presence of the substance and may jointly possess an article, exercising exercise control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that article the substance.
If-a person has exclusive possession of a controlled substance, knowledge of its presence may be - inferred-or assumed*
If a person does not have exclusive possession of a -controlled — substance, knowledge -of its presence may not be inferred or assumed.
Inferences.
Give if applicable. See McMillon v. State, 818 So.2d 56 (Fla.2002).
You are permitted to infer that a person who sells a controlled substance knows of its illicit nature.
Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Meme v. State, 72 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
If you find that (defendant):
a. had direct physical custody of the substance, [or]
b. was within ready reach of the substance and the substance was under [his][her] control, [or]
*198 c. had exclusive control of the place where the substance was located, you may infer that [he][she] was aware of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it.
If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where a substance was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had knowledge of the presence of the substance or the ability to control it, in the absence of other incriminating evidence.
Give if applicable. See Duncan v. State, 986 So.2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it if [he][she] 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.
Knowledge -of-the illicit - nature — of—the controlled substanceAffirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 898.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.
Knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance is not an-element of the-offense of- (insert name of offense charged). Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an — affirmative defense to (crime charged). (Defendant) has raised this affirmative defense. However, y
You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that (defendant) [he][she] knew of the presence of the controlled substance and exercised control or ownership over the substance.was in actual or constructive possession of the controlled substance.
If from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proved, you should find (defendant) [him][her] guilty of (crime charged).
If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) [him][her] not guilty of (crime charged).
Lesser Included Offenses
[[Image here]]
*199 [[Image here]]
Comment
If the State alleges the defendant possessed cannabis, in an amount more than 20 grams, with intent to sell, purchase, deliver, or manufacture the cannabis, there will be both a felony necessary lesser-ineluded offense of simple possession and a misdemeanor lesser-ineluded offense of simple possession._See Note §- § 89343(3) and 893.13(6)(b), Fla. Stat.T if-the-charge -involves possession or delivery-without consideration-of-not -more than 20-grams of cannabis.
If the State alleges the defendant possessed a controlled substance listed in § 893.03(l)(c)46.-50., 114.-142., 151.-159, or 166.-169., in an amount more than 3 grams, there will be both a felony necessary lesser-ineluded offense of simple possession and a misdemeanor necessary lesser-ineluded offense of simple possession. See § 893.13(6)(b).
There is no crime of Attempted Delivery because the definition of “delivery” in § 893.03(6) Fla. Stat. includes the attempt to transfer from one person to another.
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], 1997 [697 So.2d 84], and 2007 [969 So.2d 245], and 2014. See-also ■ SC03-629 [869 So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004) ].
25.3 DRUG — ABUSE—SALE, PURCHASE, DELIVERY, OR POSSESSION IN EXCESS OF TEN GRAMS
§ 893.13(1)0»), (2)(b), and (6)(c), Fla. Stat.
This instruction will have to be altered if a combination of substances is alleged.
Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as “controlled substances.” • (Specific substance alleged) is a controlled substance.
To prove the crime of (crime charged), the State must prove the following (applicable number) elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) [sold] [purchased] [delivered] [possessed] a certain substance that weighed more than 10 grams.
{soldi
[possessed]
more -than 10-grams of a certain substance.
Give if possession is charged
3. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance.
“Sell” means to transfer or deliver something to another person in exchange for money or something of value or a promise of money or something of value.
“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.
*200 To “possess — means to have personal charge of or exereise the right-of-ownership, management, or-control over the thing possessed
Possession-may-be actual-or constructive
There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and constructive possession.
Actual -possession.
Actual possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance and:
a. The controlled substance is in the hand of or on the person, or
b. The controlled substance is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or
c. The controlled substance is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.
Give if applicable^-
Mere proximity to a controlled substance is not sufficient to-establish-eon-trol over that controlled-substance when it-is-not-in a place over which the person has control.
Constructive possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance, the controlled substance is in a place over which the (defendant) person has control, and the person has the ability to control the substance or in w-hich-the-(defendant) has concealed- it.
Mere proximity to a substance is not sufficient to establish control over that substance when the substance is in a place that the person does not control.
In order to establish (defendant’s) constructive possession of a controlled substance if the controlled-substance that was is in a place over which the-(defendant) [he] [she] does did not have control, the State must prove the (defen-danfe) (1) knew that the substance was within [his][her] presence has the-control over the controlled substance and (2) knowledge that the controlled-snb-stance-was within the (defendant’s)-pres-enee exercised control or ownership over the substance itself.
Joint possession. •
Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be aware of the presence of the substance and may jointly possess-an article, exercising exercise control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that article-the substance.
If a person has exclusive possession of a controlled substance^knowledge of its presence may be-inferred or assumed.
If a person does not-have-e-xclnsive possession — of—Sr- controlled substance, knowledge of its-presence may not be inferred or assumed.
Give if applicable. See McMillon v. State, 813 So.2d 56 (Fla.2002).
You are permitted to infer that a person who sells a controlled substance knows of its illicit nature.
Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 So.Sd 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Meme v. State, 72 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
*201 a. had direct physical custody of the substance, [or]
b. was within ready reach of the substance and the substance was under [his][her] control, [or]
c. had exclusive control of the place where the substance was located, you may infer that [he][she] was aware of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it.
If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where a substance was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had knowledge of the presence of the substance or the ability to control it, in the absence of other incriminating evidence.
Give if applicable. See Duncan v. State, 986 So.2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it if [he][she] 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.
Knowledge- of the illicit nature-of-the controlled substance. Affirmative defense: Lack, of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 898.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.
Knowledge-of-the illicit nature of the controlled substance is not an element of-the offense of (insert name of offense charged). Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an — affirmative—defense to (crime charged). (Defendant) has raised this affirmative defense. However, y
You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that (defendant) [he][she] knew of the presence of the controlled substance and exercised control or ownership over the substance.was in actual or constructive possession of — the- controlled substance.
If from the — evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubtthat (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proved, you should find (defendant) [him][her]guilty of (crime charged).
If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) [him][her] not guilty of (crime charged).
*202 charged Attempt, except when delivery is charged 777.04(1) 5.1 If possession is charged 893.13(6)(a)
There is no crime of Attempted Delivery because the definition of “delivery” in § 893.03(6) Fla. Stat. includes the attempt to transfer from one person to another.
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [548 So.2d 1205], 1997 [697 So.2d 84], and-2007 [969 So.2d 245], and 2014. See also SC03-629-[869-§O;24 1205 (Fla.2004)-],
25.4 DRUG ABUSE-DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO OR USE OF MINOR
§ 893.13(4), Fla. Stat.
Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as “controlled substances.” (Specific substance alleged) is a controlled substance.
To prove the crime of (crime charged), the State must prove the following [three] [four] elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
Give la, lb, or leas applicable.
1.a. -{(Defendant) delivered a certain substance to a person under the age of 18 years.]
b. -[(Defendant) used or hired a person under the age of 18 years as an agent or employee in the sale or delivery of a certain substance.]
c. -[(Defendant) used a person under the age of 18 years to assist in avoiding detection or apprehension for (violation of chapter 893, Fla. Stat., alleged).]
3. (Defendant) was 18 years of age or older at the time.
4. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance.
Definition.
“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.
Knowledge of the ■ illicit-nature of the controlled substance- Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.
Knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance-is-not an element of the-offense of (insert name -of-offense charged)-.- Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an — affirmative—defense to (crime charged). (Defendant) has raised this affirmative defense. However,-y
You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that (defendant) [he][she] knew of the presence of the controlled substance and exercised control or ownership over the substance.was in actual or constructive-possession of the-GontroIled substance.
If from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the *203 elements of the charge have been proved, you should find (defendant) [him][her] guilty of (crime charged).
If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) [him][her] not guilty of (crime charged).
There is no crime of Attempted Delivery because the definition of “delivery” in § 893.03(6) Fla. Stat. includes the attempt to transfer from one person to another.
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], and 2007 [969 So.2d 245], and 2014. See -also SC03-629-[869-So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004) ].
25.5 DRUG ABUSE BRINGING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE INTO THE STATE
§ 893.13(5), Fla. Stat.
Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as “controlled substances.” (Specific substance alleged) is a controlled substance.
To prove the crime of (crime charged) Bringing a Controlled Substance Into the State, the State must prove the following [two] [three] elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) brought a certain substance into Florida.
3. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance.
Possession.-
To “possess” means to have personal charge of or exercise the right of ownership, management-or control over the thing possessed.
Possession-may-be-actual or constructive
Actual possession-means:
st. — the controlled substance is in the hand of or on the person,-or-
*204 b, — the controlled substance — is in a container in the-hand of or on-the person,-or-
e. — the—controlled—substance—is—so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of — the person
Give if-appUcoMe?
Mere proximity to a controlled-substance is not sufficient to establish-control overthat-contr oiled substance-when it is not in a place-over-which the person has control-
Constructive — possession—means—the controlled-substance is in a place over which the (defendant)-has-control, or in which the (defendant) has concealed it»
In order to establish constructive-possession-of-a-eontrolled substance-if-the controlled substance is in a place over whic-h-the (defendant) does not have-eon-trol, the State must prove the (defendant's)-^!) control over the controlled substance and (2) knowledge that -the controlled-substance was within the (defendant’s-) presence.
Possession may be joint, that is, two or-more-persons may jointly possess -an ar-tiele — exercising control over -it. — I» that case, each of those persons-is-considered to be in possession-of-that-ar-ti-cle.
If a person has exclusive possession-of a controlled substance,-knowledge of its presence may be inferred or assumed*
If a person does- not- have-exelusive possession of a controlled substance, knowledge of its presence may -not-be inferrred or assumed.
Knowledge of the -illicit-nature of the controlled mbstance.- Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.
Knowledge of the illicit nature-of-the controlled substance is not -an-element of the offense-of- (insert name of offense charged)? Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense to Bringing a Controlled Substance Into the State. (Defendant) has raised this affirmative defense. However, y
You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that (defendant-) [he][she] knew of the presence of the controlled substance and exercised control or ownership over the substance.was-in-aetual or constructive possession-of-the — controlled substance?
If from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proved, you should find (defendant) [him][her] guilty of Bringing a Controlled Substance Into the State.
If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) [him][her] not guilty of Bringing a Controlled Substance Into the State.
*205 [[Image here]]
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1997 [697 So.2d 84] and 2007 [969 So.2d 245], and 2014. See also SCQ3-6294869 So.2d-1205 (⅜2004) ].
25.6 DRUG ABUSE — CONTRABAND SELL, MANUFACTURE, DELIVER, OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL, MANUFACTURE OR DELIVER A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN SPECIFIED LOCATIONS
§ 893.13(l)(c)-(f)T and (h) Fla. Stat.
Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as “controlled substances.” (Specific substance alleged) is a controlled substance.
To prove the crime of (crime charged), the State must prove the following [three] [four] elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) [sold] [manufactured] [delivered] [possessed with intent to [sell] [manufacture] [deliver]] a certain substance.
[S0Id]
[possessed with intent-to sell]
[possessed with intent to manu-
facture]
[possessed with intent-to deliver]
a certain substance.
Give — —⅜⅛—as applicable. § 893.13(l)(c)-(f) and (h), Fla. Stat.
2.⅜ — The [sale] [manufacture] [delivery] [possession with intent to [sell] [manufacture] [deliver]] took place in, on, or within 1,000 feet of: [the real property comprising a child care facility];
[the real property comprising a public or private [elementary], [middle]; or [secondary] school between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight]^
[the real property comprising [a state, county, or municipal park] [a community center] [a publicly-owned recreational facility];
[the real property comprising a public or private college, university, or other postsecondary educational institution];
[a physical place for worship at which a church or religious organi *206 zation regularly conducts religious services];
[a convenience business]; [the real property comprising a public housing facility];
[the real property comprising an assisted living facility].
§ S93.18(l)(c-j), Fla. Stat
& — in, on, or within 1000 feet of [the real propel comprising-a public housing facility] [the real property comprising a public-or-private college, university, or other-postsecondary educational institution] [a state, county or municipal park] [a- community center] [a publicly- owned recreation facility] [a physical-place for- worship at which a church or religious organization regularly — conducts—religious—services]-[a-convenience business],
3. The substance was (specific substance alleged).
4. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the substance.
“Sell” means to transfer or deliver something to another person in exchange for money or something of value or a promise of money or something of value.
Manufacture. § 89S.02(13)(a), Fla. Stat.
“Manufacture” means the production, preparation, packaging, labeling or relabeling, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly. Manufacturing can be by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis. It can also be by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis.
“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.
To “possess’ -means to-have personal charge of or exercise the-right of ownership,-management, or — control over — the thing possessed.
Possession may be actual or construc-tive.
There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and constructive possession.
Actual possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance and:
a. The controlled substance is in the hand of or on the person, or
b. The controlled substance is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or
c. The controlled substance is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.
Give if applicable.-
Mere proximity to a controlled-substance-is not sufficient-to-establish-eon-trol-over- that controlled substance when it is not in a place-over which the person has control.
Constructive-possession?
*207 Constructive possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance, the controlled substance is in a place over which the {defendant) person has control, and the person has the ability to control the substance or — in which the (defendant) has concealed-it.
Mere proximity to a substance is not sufficient to establish control over that substance when the substance is in a place that the person does not control.
In order to establish (defendant’s) constructive possession of a controlled substance if the controlled substance that was is in a place over which the (defendant) [he][she] does did not have control, the State must prove the (defen-danfe) (1) knew that the substance was within [his][her] presence has the- control over — the-controlled substance and (2) knowledge that-the controlled-substance -was within the (defendant’s) presence exercised control or ownership over the substance itself.
Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be aware of the presence of the substance and may jointly possess an article» ■ exercising exercise control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that article - the substance.
If-a-person has exclusive-possession of a controlled-substance» knowledge of its presence may be Inferred or assumed.
If a person does not have exclusive possession ■ of a controlled substance» knowledge of its presence may not be inferred or assumed.
Give if applicable. See McMillon v. State, 813 So.2d 56 (Fla.2002).
You are permitted to infer that a person who sells a controlled substance knows of its illicit nature.
Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Meme v. State, 72 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011),
b. was within ready reach of the substance and the substance was under [his][her] control, [or]
c. had exclusive control of the place where the substance was located, you may infer that [he][she] was aware of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it.
If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where a substance was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had knowledge of the presence of the substance or the ability to control it, in the absence of other incriminating evidence.
Give if applicable. See Duncan v. State, 986 So.2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it if [he][she] 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.
Child care facility. § 102.302 Fla. Stat.
*208 “Child care facility” means any child care center or arrangement which provides child care for more than five children unrelated to the operator and which receives a payment, fee, or grant for any of the children receiving care. It does not matter if the child care facility is operated for profit or as a nonprofit operation.
Convenience business. § 812.171 Fla. Stat.
A “convenience business” means any place of business that is primarily engaged in the retail sale of groceries, or both groceries and gasoline, and that is open for business at any time between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. The term does not include any of the following: a business that is primarily a restaurant, or one that always has at least five employees on the premises after 11 p.m. and before 5 a.m., or one that has at least 10,000 square feet of retail floor space. The term “convenience business” also does not include any business in which the owner or members of [his][her] family work between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m.
Real property comprising a public housing facility. § 4-21.03(12) Fla. Stat.
The term “real property comprising a public housing facility” is defined as the real property of a public corporation created as a housing authority by statute.
Community Center. § 893.13(l)(c) Fla. Stat.
The term “community center” means a facility operated by a nonprofit community-based organization for the provision of recreational, social, or educational services to the public.
Assisted living facility. § 1-29.02(5) Fla. Stat.
“Assisted living facility” means any building or buildings, section or distinct part of a building, private home, boarding home, home for the aged, or other residential facility, whether operated for profit or not, which undertakes through its ownership or management to 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.
Knowledge — of-the illicit nature of-the controlled substance. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.
Knowledge- of- the-illieit- nature of the controlled-substance is not an element of-the-offense of (insert name of offense charged-). Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense to (crime charged). (Defendant) has raised this affirmative defense. However ⅛-y-
You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that (defendant) [he] [she] knew of the presence of the controlled substance and exercised control or ownership over the substance.was-in-actual or constructive possession- of -the-eontrolled substance.
If from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proved, you should find (defendant) [him][her] guilty of (crime charged).
*209 If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) [him][her] not guilty of (crime charged). Lesser Included Offenses
■This instruction is based on section 89gr-lgr-Florida-Statutes (1997), and adapted from the ■ standard Instruction- on sale-of contraband near a school.
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [548 So.2d 1205], 1997 [697 So.2d 84], 2000 [765 So.2d 692], and 2007 [969 So.2d 245], and 2014. gee-alse SC03-629 [869 gfe2d-1205 (F-la.2004) ].
25.7 DRUG ABESE POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
§ 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat.
Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as “controlled substances.” (Specific substance alleged) is a controlled substance.
To prove the crime of (crime charged) Possession of a Controlled Substance, the State must prove the following [three] [four] elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) possessed — a—certain substance knew of the presence of a substance.
2. The substance was -(specific substance alleged). (Defendant) exercised control or ownership over that substance.
3. (Defendant) had knowledge-of the presence of the - substance. The substance was (specific substance alleged).
§ 893.13(6)(b) Fla.Stat.- .
The jury must make a finding as to weight if the defendant is charged with possessing more than 20 grams of cannabis or more than 3 grams of a substance listed in § 89S.03(l)(c)j6-50, 1U-U2, 151-159, or 166-169 Fla. Stat.
4. The [cannabis weighed more than 20 grams] [ (insert name of substance listed in 893.03(l)(c)46-50, 114-142, 151-159, or 166-169) weighed more than three grams].
§ 893.1S(6)(c) Fla. Stat.
The jury must make a finding as to weight if the defendant is charged with violating § 893.13(6)(c) Fla. Stat.
4, The [ (insert name of substance listed in 893.03(l)(a) or 893.03(l)(b) 1 [combination of (insert names of substances listed in 893.03(l)(a) or 893.03(l)(b) ] [mixture containing (insert- name of substance listed in *210 893.03(l)(a) or 893.03(l)(b) ] weighed more than 10 grams.
Definitions.
Give if applicable. Cannabis. § § 893.02(3), 893.13(6)(b) Fla. Stat.
Cannabis means all parts of any plant of the genus Cannabis, whether growing or not, and the seeds thereof [but does not include any resin extracted from the plant].
To "possess" means to have personalcharge of or exercise the right-of-ownership, management, or control-over — the thing-possessed, — Possession may-be actual or- constructive.There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and constructive possession.
Actual possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance and:
a. The controlled substance is in the hand of or on the person, or
b. The controlled substance is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or
c. The controlled substance is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the ¡person.
Mere proximity to a controlled-substance is not sufficient to establish control over that controlled substance when it is not in a place over-which the person has-controh
Constructive possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance, the controlled substance is in a place over which the person (defendant) has control, and the person has the ability to control the substance, or in which the (defendant) has concealed-itr
Mere proximity to a substance is not sufficient to establish control over that substance when the substance is in a place that the person does not control.
In order to establish (defendant’s) constructive possession of a controlled substance if the controlled substance that was is in a place over which the (defendant) [he][she] does did not have control, the State must prove the (defen-danfe) (1) knew that the substance was within [his][her] presence has the control over the controlled substance and (2) knowledge that the controlled substance was within the (defendant’s) presence exercised control or ownership over the substance itself.
Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be aware of the presence of a substance and may jointly possess- an article exercising exercise control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that article the substance.
If a person has exclusive possession of a- controlled-suhstancerknowIedge of- its presence may be inferred or assumed*
If a person-does not have exclusive possession of a controlled substance, knowledge of its-presence may not be inferred or assumed.
Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)-, Meme *211 v. State, 72 So.Sd 254. (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
b. was within ready reach of the substance and the substance was under [his][her] control, [or]
c. had exclusive control of the place where the substance was located,
you may infer that [he][she] was aware of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it.
If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where a substance was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had knowledge of the presence of the substance or the ability to control it, in the absence of other incriminating evidence.
Give if applicable. Duncan v. State, 986 SoM 653 (Fla, jth DCA 2008).
However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it if [he][she] 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.
Knoivledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 898.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.
Knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled-substance-is- not an element of the offense of (insert name of offenso charged). Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense to the crime of Possession of a Controlled Substancé. (Defendant) has raised this affirmative defense. However, y
You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that (defendant) [he][she] knew of the presence of the substance and exercised control or ownership over the substance. was-in actual-or constructive possession of the controlled- substance.
If from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proved, you should find (defendant) [him][her] guilty of Possession of a Controlled Substance.
If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) [him][her] not guilty of Possession of a Controlled Substance.
No — lesser-included-offenses have been identified for this offense.
*212 [[Image here]]
Note § 893.13(6)(b), Fla. Stat., .-if-the charge — involves—possession—or—delivery without-consideration-of-not more than 20 grams of cannabis?
Fla. Stat. § 893.21
A person acting in good faith who seeks medical assistance for an individual experiencing a drug-related overdose may not be prosecuted for Possession of a Controlled Substance if the evidence of the possession was obtained as a result of the person’s seeking medical assistance.
A special instruction is necessary when the defense is a mere involuntary or superficial possession. See cases such as Hamilton v. State, 732 So.2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) and Sanders v. State, 563 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], 1997 [697 So.2d 84], and 2007 [969 So.2d 245], and 2014. See also SC03-629 [869-So^d 1205 (FIa.2004)-]»
25.8 DRUG ABUSE — OBTAINING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BY FRAUD, ETC.
§ 893.13(7)(a)9, Fla. Stat.
Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as “controlled substances.” (Specific substance alleged) is a controlled substance.
To prove the crime of Obtaining a Controlled Substance by [Misrepresentation] [Fraud] [Forgery] [Deception] [Subterfuge], the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
[Misrepresentation]
fFranHl
LA A UUUJ
[Forgery]
[Deception]
[Subterfuge]
the State must prove the following-three elements beyond a reasonable-doubk
1. (Defendant) [acquired or obtained] [attempted to acquire or obtain] possession of a certain substance.
3. (Defendant) [acquired or obtained] [attempted to acquire or obtain] the substance by [misrepresentation] [fraud] [forgery] [deception] [sub-
terfuge].
[misrepresentation].
[fraud],
[forgery].
[deception].
Affirmative defense: Lack of kKnow-ledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance. , Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.
Knowledge of the illicit nature of-the controlled substance is not an- element of the offense of (insert-name-of-offense charged). Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense to the crime of Obtaining a Controlled Substance by [Misrepresentation] [Fraud] [Forgery] [Deception] [Subterfuge], (Defendant) has raised this affirmative defense.
However, you are permitted-to-presume that-(-defendant) was aware-of-the-illicit nature-of the controlled substance-if-you find-that-(-defen4ant) was-in-aGtual-or-constr-uetive possession of-the-Gontrolled substance.
*213 You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that (defendant) was in actual or constructive possession of the controlled substance. Read explanation of actual and/or constructive possession, as applicable.
If from-the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proved, you should find (defendant) [him][her] guilty of Obtaining a Controlled Substance by [Misrepresentation] [Fraud] [Forgery] [Deception] [Subterfuge].
If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) [him][her] not guilty of Obtaining a Controlled Substance by [Misrepresentation] [Fraud] [Forgery] [Deception] [Subterfuge].
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], and 2007 [969 So.2d 245], and 2014. See-ateo SC03-629 [869-So.2d 1205 (⅞2004⅛
25.9 TRAFFICKING IN CANNABIS
§ 893.135(l)(a), Fla. Stat.
Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as “controlled substances.” Cannabis is a controlled substance.
To prove the crime of Trafficking in Cannabis, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) knowingly [possessed] [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] a certain substance.
[brought-into-Florida]
a certain substance,
2. The substance was cannabis.
3. The cannabis [weighed more than 25 pounds] [constituted 300 or more cannabis plants].
If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 898.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above. For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold cannabis, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given.
1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla. Stat.)T.
2. The defendant actually [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] [possessed] cannabis.
Cannabis. § 893.02(8), Fla. Stat.
“Cannabis” means all parts of any plant of the genus Cannabis whether growing or not.
*214 Sell.
“Sell” means to transfer or deliver something to another person in exchange for money or something of value or a promise of money or something of value.
“Manufacture” means the production, preparation, packaging, labeling or relabeling, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly. Manufacturing can be by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis. It can also be by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis.
“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.
%hTo “possess” means to have personal charge of or exercise the right of ownership,-management, or control over-the-thing possessed.
There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and constructive possession.
Actual possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance and:
a.The controlled substance is in the hand of or on the person, or
b. The controlled substance is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or
c. The controlled substance is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.
Mere proximity to a controlled substance-is not sufficient-to-establish control-over- that controlled substance-when it is-not-in a place over-w-hich the person has control
Constructive possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance, the controlled substance is in a place over which the (defendant) person has control, and the person has the ability to control the substance or — in which-the (defendant) has- concealed it.
Give jf applicable.
Mere proximity to a substance is not sufficient to establish control over that substance when the substance is in a place that the person does not control.
In order to establish (defendant’s) constructive possession of a controlled substance if- the-controlled substance that was is in a place over which- the (defendant) [he][she] does did not have control, the State must prove the (defen-danfe) (1) knew that the substance was within [his][her] presence has-the-eon-trol over the controlled-substance and (2) knowledge that^the controlled-substance was within the (defendant’s)-pres-enee exercised control or ownership over the substance itself.
*215 Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be aware of the presence of the substance and may jointly possess — an articled-exercising exercise control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that article-the substance.
If a -person-has-exclusive possession of a controlled-substance, knowledge-of its presence may be-inferred or -assumed.
Give if applicable. See McMillon v. State, 813 So.2d 56 (Fla.2002).
You are permitted to infer that a person who sells a controlled substance knows of its illicit nature.
Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 So.Sd 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Meme v. State, 72 So.3d 25k (Fla, kth DCA 2011).
b. was within ready reach of the substance and the substance was under [his][her] control, [or]
c. had exclusive control of the place where the substance was located,
you may infer that [he][she] was aware of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it.
If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where a substance was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had knowledge of the presence of the substance or the ability to control it, in the absence of other incriminating evidence.
A special instruction is necessary-where the premises is jointly occupied-and the contraband is located in a common area, in plain-vieuk-emd-in-the -presence of the oioner or oc&upant. — Give if applicable. See Duncan v. State, 986 So.2d 653 (Fla. kth DCA 2008),
If a person does-not have exclusive possession of — a controlled substance, knowledge of - its presence may not be inferred or assumed. However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it if [he][she] 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.
Knoivledge -of — the-.illicit -nature of the controlled substance. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.
Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense to Trafficking in Cannabis. The -defendant (Defendant) has raised this defense. You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit-nature of the-controlled substance if-you — find that (defendant) was-in actual or constructive possession of the controlled substance.
You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that [he][she] knew of the presence of the substance and exercised control or ownership over the substance.
If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proved, you should *216 find [him][her] guilty of Trafficking in Cannabis.
If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) [him][her] not guilty of Trafficking in Cannabis.
Give if — applicable-.—See McMillon v. State, 813 So.2d 56 (Fla.2002),
You are-permitted to infer- that-a-person who-sells — a controlled substanGe-knows-of its illicit nature,
See State v. Weller, 590 So.2d 923 (Fla.1991).
If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Cannabis, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:
Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(l)(a)l.-3., Fla. Stat. to verify the weights or amounts specified in the statute, as determined by the date of the offense. Give if applicable up to extent of charge.
a.[The cannabis weighed more than 25 pounds but less than 2,000 pounds.] [constituted 300 or more cannabis plants but not more than 2,000 cannabis plants.]]
b. [The cannabis [weighed 2,000 pounds or more but less than 10,-000 pounds.] [constituted 2,000 or more cannabis plants but not more than 10,000 cannabis plants.]]
c. [The cannabis [weighed 10,000 pounds or more.] [constituted 10,-000 or more cannabis plants.]
Trafficking can be committed by sale, purchase, manufacture, delivery, bringing into this state, or actual or constructive possession of a certain amount of drugs. Each of these alternatives has its own statute for lower quantities of controlled substances. Accordingly, before deciding the appropriate lesser-included offenses, trial judges should review not only the evidence but also the charging document to see what type of trafficking was alleged. For example, if a defendant is charged only with Trafficking via Sale, then Possession of a Controlled Substance should not be given as a lesser-included offense.
*217 Comment
Trafficking, can be committed- by sale, pmrchase ¡-manufacture, delivery, bringing into this — st-afey-or actual or constructive possession. — The lesser-included offenses depend-on-what is contained-in-the- charging document and what is- supported by the evidence-. — For example — Possession of Cannabis is not a necessarily lesser-included offense-of--Trafficking in-Cannabis via Sale. Hawe-veiv-Fossession of Cannabis is a necessar-ily-lesser included-offense if the defendant-is charged with---Trafficking via Possession.-
* Possession of More Than 20 Grams of Cannabi-s-is- a -third-degree felony. — Possession of Not-MoFe-t-han-20 Grams-af-Cannabis is a first degree-misdemeanor. — See § 893.13(6) Fla. Stat.-
Delivery of Less -than 20-Grams of Cannabis Without Consideration is a first de - gree misdemeanor. — See § 893-13(3) Fla. Stat.-
There is no crime of Attempted Delivery because the definition of “delivery” in § 893.03(6) Fla. Stat. includes the attempt to transfer from one person to another. There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1987 [509 So.2d 917], 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], 1997 [697 So.2d 84], 2007 [969 So.2d 245]; and 2013 [112 So.3d 1211], and 2014. See-also SC03-629 [869-§0⅛-1205 (Fla.2004) ].
25.10 TRAFFICKING IN COCAINE
§ 893.135(l)(b), Fla. Stat.
Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as “controlled substances.” Cocaine [or any mixture containing cocaine] is a controlled substance.
To prove the crime of Trafficking in Cocaine, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) knowingly [possessed] [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] a certain substance.
{sold]
[brought into Florida]
2. The substance was [cocaine] [a mixture containing cocaine].
3. The [cocaine] [mixture containing cocaine] weighed 28 grams or more.
If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above. For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold cocaine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given.
1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla. Stat.),.
2. The defendant actually [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] [possessed] cocaine or a mixture containing cocaine.
“Sell” means to transfer or deliver something to another person in exchange for money or something of value *218 or a promise of money or something of value.
“Manufacture” means the production, preparation, packaging, labeling or relabeling, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly. Manufacturing can be by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis. It can also be by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis.
“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.
To “possess” means-to-have personal charge-of-or-exercise-the-right-of-ownership, management, or control over the thing-p Assessed.
Possession may be actual or construc-
There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and constructive possession.
Actual possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance and:
a. The controlled substance is in the hand of or on the person, or
b. The controlled substance is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or
c. The controlled substance is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.
Give -if applicable?
Mere proximity to a controlled-substance is-not-sufficient to establish-control over that controlled substance when it-is-not-in a place over which-the-per-son has control.
Constructive possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance, the controlled substance is in a place over which the (defendant) person has control, and the person has the ability to control the substance or-in which the (defendant)-has- concealed it.
Mere proximity-to-a-substance is not sufficient to establish control-over-that substance when the substance-is-in-a place that the person-does not control.
In order to establish (defendant’s) constructive possession of a controlled substance if the controlled-substance that was is in a place over which the (defendant) [he] [she] does did not have control, the State must prove the (defen-danfe) (1) knew that the substance was within [his][her] presence has the control over.the-controlled-substance and (2) knowledge-that-the controlled substance was within the (defendanRs)-presence exercised control or ownership over the substance itself.
Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be aware of the presence of the substance and may jointly possess -an article, exercising exercise control over it. In that case, each of those persons is *219 considered to be in possession of that artiele-the substance.
If a person has exclusive-possession of a controlled substancerknowledge of its presence-may- be inferred — or—assumed.
Give if applicable. See McMiUon v. State, 813 SoM 56 (Fla.2002).
You are permitted to infer that a person who sells a controlled substance knows of its illicit nature.
Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Meme v. State, 72 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
b. was within ready reach of the substance and the substance was under [his][her] control, [or]
c. had exclusive control of the place where the substance was located,
you may infer that [he][she] was aware of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it.
If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where a substance was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had knowledge of the presence of the substance or the ability to control it, in the absence of other incriminating evidence.
A-spe&ial instruction-is-necessary tvhere the premises-is jointly-occupied and-the contrabamd-is-located inr-a-eommon area, m-plam-vieio, and in -the presence of the owner-or■ occupant. Give if applicable. See Duncan v. State, 986 So. 2d 653 (Fla. Uh DCA 2008).
If a person does not- have exclusive possession — of a controlled-substance. knowledge of its presence may not beinferred or assumed. However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it if [he][she] 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.
Knowledge- of the illicit nature of the controlled substance. Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.
Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense to Trafficking in Cocaine. The-defendant (Defendant) has raised this defense. You-are permitted to presume-that (defendant)-was aware of the illicit nature of- the controlled substance if you find that — (defendant) was-in actual or constructive-possession of the controlled substance.
You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that [he][she] knew of the presence of the substance and exercised control or ownership over the substance.
If from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proved, you should find (defendant) [him][her] guilty of Trafficking in Cocaine.
If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) *220 [him][her] not guilty of Trafficking in Cocaine.
Give if applicable: — See McMillon — Vr State, -813-So.2d 56 (F~la3QQ2fr
You are permitted to -infer that a person who sells--a- controlled substance knows of its illicit nature.
If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Cocaine, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:
Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(l)(b)l.-2., Fla. Stat. to verify the weights or amounts specified in the statute, as determined by the date of the offense. Give if applicable up to extent of charge.
a. [The [cocaine][mixture containing cocaine] weighed 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams.]
b. [The [cocaine][mixture containing cocaine] weighed 200 grams or more but less than 400 grams.]
c. [The [cocaine][mixture containing cocaine] weighed 400 grams or more but less than 150 kilograms.]
d. [The [cocaine] [mixture containing cocaine] weighed 150 kilograms or more.]
Trafficking can be committed by sale, purchase, manufacture, delivery, bringing into this state, or actual or constructive possession of a certain amount of drugs. Each of these alternatives has its own statute for lower quantities of controlled substances. Accordingly, before deciding the appropriate lesser-included offenses, trial .judges should review not only the evidence but also the charging document to see what type of trafficking was alleged. For .example, if a defendant is charged only with Trafficking via Sale, then Possession of a Controlled Substance should not be given as a lesser-included offense.
-Tr-afficking-can-be-c-ommitted by sale, purchase,-manufaeture, delivery, ■bringing into — this state-or-actual or constructive ■possession. — The-lesser-included offenses depend on what is contained-in-the-c-h-arg-ing document- and-whak-⅛- supported by the evidence, — For-example, Possession of Cocaine- is ■ not-a-necessarily lesser-included offense-of Trafficking in Cocaine via Sale.
*221 -However-, Possession of Cocaine is a neces-sar-ily-lesser included offense if the defendant-is-charged with Trafficking via-Possession.
There is no crime of Attempted Delivery because the definition of “delivery” in § 898.03(6) Fla. Stat. includes the attempt to transfer from one person to another. There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 815 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1985 [477 So.2d 985], 1987 [509 So.2d 917], 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], 1997 [697 So.2d 84], 2007 [SC05-1434, October 25r-2007 969 So.2d 245], and-2013 [112 So.3d 1211], and 2014. See also SC03-629 [869 So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004) ].
25.11 TRAFFICKING IN [MORPHINE] [OPIUM] [OXYCODONE] [HYDROCODONE] [HYDROMOR-PHONE] [HEROIN] [(SPECIFIC SUBSTANCE ALLEGED) ]
§ 893.135(l)(c), Fla. Stat.
Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as “controlled substances.” (Specific substance alleged) or any mixture containing (specific substance alleged) is a controlled substance.
To prove the crime of Trafficking in [ (specific substance alleged) ], the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1.(Defendant) knowingly [possessed] [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] a certain substance.
2. The substance was [morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged)] [a mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [oxyco-done] [hydrocodone] [hydromor-phone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged) ].
3. The [morphine] [opium] [oxyco-done] [hydrocodone] [hydromor-phone] [heroin] [(specific substance alleged) ] [mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [oxycodone] [hydro-codone] [hydromorphone] [heroin] [ (specific substance alleged) ] weighed 4 grams or more.
If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 affid 2 above. For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold phencyclidine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given.
1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla. Stat.)7,
2. The defendant actually [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] [possessed] (specific substance alleged) or a mixture containing (specific substance alleged).
“Sell” means to transfer or deliver something to another person in ex *222 change for money or something of value or a promise of money or something of value.
“Manufacture” means the production, preparation, packaging, labeling or relabeling, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly. Manufacturing can be by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis. It can also be by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis.
To “possess — means to-have personal charge of or exercise the right of-ownership, management, or control over the thing- possessed.
Possession-may be actual or constr-uc-tive.
There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and constructive possession.
Actual possession.-
Actual possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance and:
a. The controlled substance is in the hand of or on the person, or
b. The controlled substance is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or
c. The controlled substance is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.
Mere - proximity to a controlled-substance is not sufficient-to-establish control-over that controlled substance when it is not-in a place over-which the person has control.
Constructive possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance, the controlled substance is in a place over which the (defendant) person has control, and the person has the ability to control the substance or in which-the (defendant) has concealed it.
Mere proximity to a substance is not sufficient to establish control over that substance when the substance is in a place that the person does not control.
In order to establish (defendant’s) constructive possession of a controlled substance if the controlled- substance that was is in a place over -which-the (defendant) [hé][she] does did not have control, the State must prove the (defendants) (1) knew that the substance was within [his][her] presence has-the control over the controlled substance and (2) knowledge that the controlled substance-was within the-(defendant’s) presence exercised control or ownership over the substance itself.
Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be aware of the presence of the substance and may jointly possess an article, ■exercising exercise control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that article-the substance.
If-a-person has exclusive possession of a controlled substance,-knowledge of its presence may be inferred -or — assumed.
*223 Inferences.
Give if applicable. See McMillan v. State, 813 So.2d 56 (Fla.2002).
You are permitted to infer that a person who sells a controlled substance knows of its illicit nature.
Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Meme v. State, 72 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
b. was within ready reach of the substance and the substance was under [his][her] control, [or]
c. had exclusive control of the place where the substance was located,
you may infer that [he][she] was aware of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it.
If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where a substance was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had knowledge of the presence of the substance or the ability to control it, in the absence of other incriminating evidence.
A special-instruction is necessary-whore the premises is jointly-occtipied-and-the contraband is located-in-a-common-area,in plain view, and-in the presence-of the oumer-or-occupant. Give if applicable. See Duncan v. State, 986 So.2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
If a — person does not have exclusive possession — of- a controlled substance, knowledge of its presence may^-not-be inferred or assumed. However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it if [he][she] 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.
Knowledge -of-the-illicit nature of the controlled substance-.- Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.
Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an- affirmative — defense to Trafficking in (Substance Alleged). The defendant (Defendant) has raised this defense. ¥©» are permitted to presume that (defendant)-was awar-e-of the illicit-nature of the controlled — substance if you find that (defendant) was in actual or constructive possession of the -controlled substance.
You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that [he][she] knew of the presence of the substance and exercisedcontrol or ownership over the substance.
If from the — evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proved, you should find (defendant) [him][her] guilty of Trafficking in (Substance Alleged).
If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) [him][her] not guilty of Trafficking in (Substance Alleged).
Give if appMmble-. — See- McMillon v. State, 813 So.2d 56(Fla.2002).
*224 You are permitted to-infer that a person who sells — a controlled substance knows of its illicit nature*
See State v. Weller, 590 So.2d 923 (Fla.1991).
If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Illegal Drugs, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:
Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(l)(c)l.-2., Fla. Stat. to verify the weights or amounts specified in the statute, as determined by the date of the offense. Give if applicable up to extent of charge.
a. [The [morphine] [opium] [oxy-codone] [hydrocodone] [hydro-morphone] [heroin] [ (specific substance alleged) ] [mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [ox-ycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydro-morphone] [herioin] [ (specific substance alleged) ] weighed 4 grams or more but less than 14 grams.]
b. [The [morphine] [opium] [oxy-codone] [hydrocodone] [hydro-morphone] [heroin] [ (specific substance alleged) ] [mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [ox-ycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydro-morphone] [herioin] [ (specific substance alleged) ] weighed 14 grams or more but less than 28 grams.]
c. [The [morphine] [opium] [oxy-codone] [hydrocodone] [hydro-morphone] [heroin] [ (specific substance alleged) ] [mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [ox-ycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydro-morphone] [herioin] [ (specific substance alleged) ] weighed 28 grams or more but less than 30 kilograms.]
d. [The [morphine] [opium] [oxy-codone] [hydrocodone] [hydro-morphone] [heroin] [ (specific substance alleged) ] [mixture containing [morphine] [opium] [ox-ycodone] [hydrocodone] [hydro-morphone] [herioin] [ (specific substance alleged) ] weighed 30 kilograms or more.]
Trafficking can be committed by sale, purchase, manufacture, delivery, bringing into this state, or actual or constructive possession of a certain amount of drugs. Each of these alternatives has its own statute for lower quantities of controlled substances. Accordingly, before deciding the appropriate lesser-included offenses, trial .judges should review not only the evidence but also the charging document to see what type of trafficking was alleged. For example, if a defendant is charged only with Trafficking via Sale, then Possession of a Controlled Substance should not be given as a lesser-included offense.
*225 [[Image here]]
■Trafficking can be committed by sale, purchase, manufacturer-delivery» bringing into this -stater-or actual 01 — constructive possession. — The lesser-included offenses depend-on what is contained in the charging docunaent~and what is-supported by the-evidence. — For example, Possession of a Controlled Substance is-not a necessarily lesser-included offense of-T-rafficking-in-a Controlled Substance via Sale. However, Possession of a Controlled Substance-is a necessarily-lesser Included — offense-if the defendant-is- charged with-!Trafficking via Possession.
There is no crime of Attempted Delivery because the definition of “delivery” in § 893.03(6) Fla. Stat. includes the attempt to transfer from one person to another. There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA1975).
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1985 [477 So.2d 985], 1987 [509 So.2d 917], 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], 1997 [697 So.2d 84], 2007 [969 So.2d 245], and 2013 [112 So.3d 1211], and 2014. See also SCQ3-629 [869 So.2d 1205 (FIa.2004) ].
25.12 TRAFFICKING IN PHENCYCLIDINE
§ 893.135(l)(d), Fla. Stat.
Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as “controlled substances.” Phencyclidine or any mixture containing phencyclidine is a controlled substance.
To prove the crime of Trafficking in Phencyclidine, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) knowingly [possessed] [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] a certain substance.
{manufactured]
{delivered]
2. The substance was [phencyclidine] [a mixture containing phencycli-dine],
3. The [phencyclidine] [mixture containing phencyclidine] weighed 28 grams or more.
If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above. For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold phencyclidine, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given.
1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla. Stat.)7,
2. The defendant actually [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] *226 [possessed] phencyclidine or a mixture containing phencyclidine.
“Sell” means to transfer or deliver something to another person in exchange for money or something of value or a promise of money or something of value.
“Manufácture” means the production, preparation, packaging, labeling or relabeling, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly. Manufacturing can be by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis. It can also be by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis.
“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.
To "possess" means to have personal charge-of-or-e-xereise the right of ownership, management, or control over-the tiling-possessed,
Possession-may-be actual or-construc-tive.
There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and constructive possession.
Actual possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance and:
a. The controlled substance is in the hand of or on the person, or
b. The controlled substance is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or
c. The controlled substance is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.
Mere proximity to a controlled substance- is not sufficient to establish-control over that controlled substanGe-when it is not in a place over which the-per-son has control.
Constructive possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance, the controlled substance is in a place over which the (defendant) person has control, and the person has the ability to control the substance or- in which the (defendant) has concealed-it.
Mere proximity to a substance is not sufficient to establish control over that substance when the substance is in a place that the person does not control.
In order to establish (defendant’s) constructive possession of a controlled substance if the controlled substance that was is in a place over which the (defendant) [he][she] does did not have control, the State must prove the (defen-danfe) (1) knew that the substance was within [his][her] presence has the control over the controlled substance and (2) knowledge that the controlled substance was -within the (defendant’s)-presence exercised control or ownership over the substance itself.
*227 Joint possession.
Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be aware of the presence of the substance and may jointly possess an article, exercising exercise control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that article the substance.
If a person-has exclusive possession of a controlled substance, knowledge of its presence -may- be inferred or assumed.
Give if applicable. See McMillan v. State, 813 So.2d 56 (Fla.2002).
You are permitted to infer that a person who sells a controlled substance knows of its illicit nature.
Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Meme v. State, 72 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
b. was within ready reach of the substance and the substance was under [his][her] control, [or]
c. had exclusive control of the place where the substance was located,
you may infer that [he][she] was aware of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it.
If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where a substance was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had knowledge of the presence of the substance or the ability to control it, in the absence of other incriminating evidence.
A special-instruction is necessary-where-thc-premises is jointly occupied and the contraband, is-docatedin Or-common-area, in-plain view,- and in the presence of the oivner or occupant. Give if applicable. See Duncan v. State, 986 So.2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
■If a person-does not have exclusive possession of — a.controlled- substance, knowledge of its-presence-may not-be inferred or assumed. However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it if [he][she] 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.
Knoivlcdge of the--illicit-nature of-the controlled substance⅛- Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.
Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative — defense to Trafficking in Phencyclidine. The defendant (Defendant) has raised this defense. You-are permitted to-presume that--(defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of-the controlled suhstance-if you find that (defendant) was in actual or constructive possession of the controlled substance.
You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that [he][she] knew of the presence of the substance and exercised control or ownership over the substance.
If from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been *228 proved, you should find (defendant) [him][her] guilty of Trafficking in Phencyclidine.
If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) [him][her] not guilty of Trafficking in Phencyclidine.
Give if applicable-. — See McMillon v.State,- 813-SoM 56 (Fla.2002).
You are permitted-to-infer that a person who sells a controlled — substance knows-of its illicit nature.
See State v. Weller, 590 So.2d 923 (Fla. 1991).
If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Phencyclidine, you must further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:
Enhanced penalty. See § 893.135(l)(d)l.a.-c., Fla. Stat. to verify the weights or amounts specified in the statute, as determined by the date of the offense. Give if applicable up to extent of charge.
a. [The [phencyclidine][mixture containing phencyclidine] weighed 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams.]
b. [The [phencyclidine] [mixture containing phencyclidine] weighed 200 grams or more but less than 400 grams.]
c. [The [phencyclidine][mixture containing phencyclidine] weighed 400 grams or more.]
Trafficking can be committed by sale, purchase, manufacture, delivery, bringing into this state, or actual or constructive possession of a certain amount of drugs. Each of these alternatives has its own statute for lower quantities of controlled substances. Accordingly, before deciding the appropriate lesser-included offenses, trial .judges should review not only the evidence but also the charging document to see what type of trafficking was alleged. For example, if a defendant is charged only with Trafficking via Sale, then Possession of a Controlled Substance should not be given as a lesser-included offense.
Trafficking can be committed by sale,. purchase, manufacture — deliver-^v-bringing into this state, or actual or constructive ■possession- — The lesser-included offenses depend-on what is contained -in -the-charging document and-wfaat-i-s- supported- by the evidence. — For example, Possession-of
*229 ■Phencyclidine-is-not-a-necessarily lesser-included-offense-of-Trafficking in Phency-clidine — via Sale. However, Possession of Pheneyelidine — is—a—necessarily-lesser included of&nse-if-the-defendant is charged with Trafficking via-Possession.
There is no crime of Attempted Delivery because the definition of “delivery5’ in § 893.03(6) Fla. Stat. includes the attempt to transfer from one person to another. There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1987 [509 So.2d 917], 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], 1997 [697 So.2d 84], 2007 [969 So.2d 245], 2013 [112 So.3d 1211], and 2014. See also SC03-629-[869. So.2d 1205 ⅛2004)-],
25.13 TRAFFICKING IN METHAQUALONE
§ 893.135(l)(e), Fla. Stat.
Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as “controlled substances.” Methaqualone or any mixture containing methaqualone is a controlled substance.
To prove the crime of Trafficking in Methaqualone, the State must prove the following three elements, beyond a reasonable doubt:
1.(Defendant) knowingly [possessed] [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] a certain substance.
[sold}
[possessed-]
2. The substance was [methaqual-one] [a mixture containing metha-qualone].
3. The [methaqualone] [a mixture containing methaqualone] weighed 200 grams or more.
If applicable under the facts of the case and pursuant to § 893.135(2), Fla. Stat., instructions on the following elements 1 and 2 should be given instead of elements 1 and 2 above. For example, if it is alleged that the defendant intended to sell heroin but actually sold methaqualone, instructions on elements 1 and 2 below would be given.
1. (Defendant) intended to [sell] [purchase] [manufacture] [deliver] [bring into Florida] [possess] (an enumerated controlled substance in § 893.135(1), Fla. Stat.)5.
2. The defendant actually [sold] [purchased] [manufactured] [delivered] [brought into Florida] [possessed] methaqualone or a mixture containing methaqualone.
“Sell” means to transfer or deliver something to another person in exchange for money or something of value or a promise of money or something of value.
“Manufacture” means the production, preparation, packaging, labeling or relabeling, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly. Manufacturing can be by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis. It can *230 also be by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis.
“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.
To “possess” means- to- have personal charge of or-exercise the right of ownership, management, -or — control over the thing-possessedr
Possession-may be actual or construc-tive.
There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and constructive possession.
Actual possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance and:
a. The controlled substance is in the hand of or on the person, or
b. The controlled substance is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or
c. The controlled substance is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.
Mere - proximity -to- a-controlled sub-stanee-is-not-sufficient-to-establish control-over that controlled substance-when it-is-not in a place- over-which-the-per-son V>qo QAwfvrtl
lluDV\JX 1 vi. vlf
Constructive possession means the person is aware of the presence of the substance, the controlled substance is in a place over which the (defendant) person has control, and the person has the ability to control the substance or — in which the (defendant) has concealed-it,
Mere proximity to a substance is not sufficient to establish control over that substance when the substance is in a place that the person does not control.
In order to establish (defendant’s) constructive possession of a controlled substance if the-controlled substance that was ⅛ in a place over-w-hich the (defendant) [he][she] does did not have control, the State must prove the (defen-danfe) (1) knew that the substance was within [his][her] presence has the control over the -controlled substance and (2) knowledge that the controlled-substance-was within the (defendanfe)-pres-enee exercised control or ownership over the substance itself.
Possession of a substance may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be aware of the presence of the substance and may jointly possess an article, exercising exercise control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that article the substance.
If a person has exclusive possession-of a controlled-substance, knowledge- of its presence may be inferred -or — assumed.
Give if applicable. See McMillon v. State, 813 So.2d 56 (Fla.2002).
You are permitted to infer that a person who sells a controlled substance knows of its illicit nature.
*231 Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Meme v. State, 72 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
b. was within ready reach of the substance and the substance was under [his][her] control, [or]
c. had exclusive control of the place . where the substance was located,
you may infer that [he][she] was aware of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it.
If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where a substance was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had knowledge of the presence of the substance or the ability to control it, in the absence of other incriminating evidence.
A-special instruction is necessary-ivhere the-premises is jointly.occupied and the contraband is located in a common area, in plain-vieWj-and in the-presence of the owner--or occupant. Give if applicable. See Duncan v. State, 986 So.2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
If a person does not-have exclusive possession of a controlled substance, knowledge of its presence-may not be inferred or-assumed. However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it if [he][she] 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.
Knoioledge of the illi&it-nature.of the controlled substance.- Affirmative defense:
Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. Give if applicable. § 893.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.
Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense to Trafficking in Me-thaqualone. The defendant (Defendant) has raised this defense. You are permitted to presume that-(defendant) was aware-of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that (dofon dant) was in actual or-constructive possession of the controlled-substance,
You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that [he][she] knew of the presence of the substance and exercised control or ownership over the substance.
If from the — evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proved, you should find (defendant) [him][her] guilty of Trafficking in Me-thaqualone.
If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) . [him][her] not guilty of Trafficking in Methaqualone.
Give if applicable. — See—McMillon v. State, 818-So/2d-56 (Fla£Q02).-
You are permitted to-infer- that a person who sells a controlled-substance knows-of its illicit nature.
If you find the defendant guilty of Trafficking in Methaqualone, you must *232 further determine by your verdict whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that:
Enhanced penalty. See § 89S.135(l)(e)l.a.-c., Fla. Stat. to verify the weights or amounts specified in the statute, as determined by the date of the offense. Give if applicable up to extent of charge.
a. [The [methaqualone][mixture containing methaqualone] weighed 200 grams or more but less than 5 kilograms.]
b. [The [methaqualone] [mixture containing methaqualone] weighed 5 kilograms or more but less than 25 kilograms.]
c. [The [methaqualone][mixture containing methaqualone] weighed 25 kilograms or more.]
Trafficking can be committed by sale, purchase, manufacture, delivery, bringing into this state, or actual or constructive possession of a certain amount of drugs. Each of these alternatives has its own statute for lower quantities of controlled substances. Accordingly, before deciding the appropriate lesser-included offenses, trial judges should review not only the evidence but also the charging document to see what type of trafficking was alleged. For example, if a defendant is charged only with Trafficking via Sale, then Possession of a Controlled Substance should not be given as a lesser-included offense.
_TRAFFICKING IN METHAQUALONE — 89⅝135(-1)(⅛⅛_ CATEGORY-ONE_CATEGORY TWO_FLA. STAT.INS.-NQ, Trafficking offenses requiring low- 893a35(Y)(o)l.a and b 2⅝4⅜ or quantities-of-methaqualone Possession of Methaqualone, if 893⅛3(6)(⅝) 2⅝7 Trafficking via Possession is charged Attempt cxcopt when-delivery-or 777.01(1) conspiracy is charged
Trafficking-can-be-committed by sale,' purehase,-manafaeture, delivery, bringing into this state, or actual or-constructive possession. — The lesser-included -offenses depend on what is contained in the charging-document and what.is-supported — by the evidence. — For example, Possession-of Methaqualone-is-not a necessarily-lesser-included offense-o-f Trafficking in ■ Metha-qualone- via ■ Sale.-Howeveiy Possession of Metfaaqualone-is — a necessarily-lesser -included offense if the-defendant is charged with Trafficking-via-PossessionT
There is no crime of Attempted Delivery because the definition of “delivery” in § 893.03(6) Fla. Stat. includes the attempt to transfer from one person to another. There is no crime of attempted conspiracy. Hutchinson v. State, 315 So.2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1987 [509 So.2d 917], 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], 1997 [697 So.2d 84], 2007 [969 *233 So.2d 245], 2013 [112 So.3d 1211], and 2014. See also SC03-629 [869 So.2d 1205 (■Fla-2004) ].■
25.14 DRUG ABUSE — USE OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO USE OE DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
§ 893.147(1), Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Use or Possession With Intent to Use of Drug Paraphernalia, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) used — or—had—in t-his][her] possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia knew of the presence of the drug paraphernalia.
2. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the-drug paraphernalia [used the drug paraphernalia] [or] [possessed the drug paraphernalia with intent to use it] to: [plant] [propagate] [cultivate] [grow] [harvest] [manufacture] [compound] [convert] [produce] [process] [prepare] [test] [analyze] [pack] repack] [store] contain] [conceal] a controlled substance;
[inject] [ingest] [inhale] [or] [introduce] a controlled substance into the human body.
To “possess” means to have personal charge of or exercise the right of ownership, management-or control over the thing possessed.
Possession may-be actual or construc-tive.
There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and constructive possession.
Actual possession of drug paraphernalia means the person is aware of the presence of the drug paraphernalia and:
a. The drug paraphernalia is in the hand of or on the person, or
b. The drug paraphernalia is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or
c. The drug paraphernalia is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.
Mere proximity to a paraphernalia is not sufficient to -establish control over that paraphernalia-when it- is not in a place over-which the person-has-control.
Constructive possession of drug paraphernalia means the person is aware of the presence of the drug paraphernalia, the drug paraphernalia is in a place over which the (defendant) person has control, and the person has the ability to control the drug paraphernalia, or — in which the- (defendant)-has concealed it.
Mere proximity to drug paraphernalia is not sufficient to establish control over that drug paraphernalia when the drug paraphernalia is in a place that the person does not control.
In order to establish (defendant’s) constructive possession of a controlled-substance if the controlled suhstanee is drug paraphernalia that was in a place over-which-the-(defendant) does [he][she] *234 did not have control, the State must prove the (defendanfe) (1) knew that the drug paraphernalia was within [his][her] presence control-over the controlled substance and (2) knowledge that the controlled substance was within the (defendant’s) presence, exercised control or ownership over the drug paraphernalia itself.
Possession of drug paraphernalia may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be aware of the presence of the drug paraphernalia and may jointly possess.an article, exercising exercise control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that.ar-tide, the drug paraphernalia.
If a person has exclusive possession-of paraphernaliar-knowledge-of its presence-may be inferred-or-assumedr
If a person does -not-have exclusive possession-of-paraphernalia> -knowledge of its presence may-not-be inferred-or assumed.
Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Meme v. State, 72 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
If you find that (defendant);
a. had direct physical custody of the drug paraphernalia, [or]
b. was within ready reach of the drug paraphernalia and the drug paraphernalia was under [his][her] control, [or]
c. had exclusive control of the place where the drug paraphernalia was located,
you may infer that [he][she] was aware of the presence of the drug paraphernalia and had the ability to control it.
If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where drug paraphernalia was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had knowledge of the presence of the drug paraphernalia or the ability to control it, in the absence of other incriminating evidence.
Give if applicable. Duncan v. State, 986 So.2d 653. (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the drug paraphernalia and had the ability to control it if [he][she] had joint control over the place where the drug paraphernalia was located, and the drug paraphernalia was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the, defendant.
Drug Paraphernalia. § 893.115, Fla. Stat.
The term “drug paraphernalia” means all equipment, products, and materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance in violation of this chapter. It includes, but is not limited to:
Give specific definition as applicable.
1. Kits used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, or harvesting of any species of plant which is a controlled substance or from which a controlled substance can be derived.
*235 2. Kits used,, intended for use, or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, or preparing controlled substances.
3. Isomerization devices used, intended for use, or designed for use in increasing the potency of any species of plant which is a controlled substance.
4. Testing equipment used, intended for use, or designed for use in identifying, or in analyzing the strength, effectiveness, or purity of, controlled substances.
5. Scales and balances used, intended for use, or designed for use in weighing or measuring controlled substances.
6. Diluents and adulterants, such as quinine hydrochloride, mannitol, man-nite, dextrose, and lactose used, intended for use, or designed for use in cutting controlled substances.
7. Separation gins and sifters used, intended for use, or designed for use in removing twigs and seeds from, or in otherwise cleaning or refining, cannabis.
8. Blenders, bowls, containers, spoons, and mixing devices used, intended for use, or designed for use in compounding controlled substances.
9. Capsules, balloons, envelopes, and other containers used, intended for use, or designed for use in packaging small quantities of controlled substances.
10. Containers and other objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in storing or concealing controlled substances.
11. Hypodermic syringes, needles, and other objects used, intended for use, or designed, for use in parenterally injecting controlled substances into the human body.
12.Objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis, cocaine, hashish, or hashish oil into the human body, such as:
a. Metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or . punctured metal bowls.
b. Water pipes.
c. Carburetion tubes and devices.
d. Smoking and carburetion masks.
e. Roach clips: meaning objects used to hold burning material, such as a cannabis cigarette, that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand.
f. Miniature cocaine spoons, and cocaine vials.
g. Chamber pipes.
h. Carburetor pipes.
i. Electric pipes.
j. Air-driven pipes.
k. Chillums.
l. Bongs.
m. Ice pipes or chillers.
Relevant factors. § 893.H6, Fla. Stat.
In addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following factors shall be considered in determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia:
1. Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use.
2. The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this act.
*236 3. The proximity of the object to controlled substances.
4. The existence of any residue of controlled substances on the object.
5. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to persons whom [he][she] knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to facilitate a violation of this act. The innocence of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, as to a direct violation of this act shall not prevent a finding that the object is intended for use, or designed for use, as drug paraphernalia.
6. Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use.
7. Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use.
8. Any advertising concerning its use.
9. The manner in which the object is displayed for sale.
10. Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products.
11. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object or objects to the total sales of the business enterprise.
12. The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community.
13. Expert testimony concerning its use.
Knowledge-of — the illicit nature of the controlled-mobstmee-. — Give if applicable- ■§~893t1-0-1(3) and (3), Fla. Stat-
Knowledge of the-illicit nature of the controlled-substance is not an element of the offense of (insert name of- offense charged-). — Lack of knowledge of the -illicit nature-of-a-controiled substance is an-affirmative defense. — (Defendant) has raised this affirmative defense. — However-,-you-are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of -the-illicit-nature-of-the-eoutrolled substance if you find that (defendant) was in - aetual-or-constructive-possession-of-the controlled substance.
If from the evidence you are- convinced-that (defendant) knew of the -illicit — nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the-charge have been proved,- you-should-fínd-(-áe-fendant)-guilty.
If you have a-reasonable doubt on the question-of-w-hether (defendant) knew of the illicit-nature-of-the-controlled substance, you should find (defendant)-not guilty.
POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA — 893.147(1) CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO. None_ Attempt_777.04(1)5.1
*237 Comment
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [548 So.2d 1205], 1992 [608 So.2d 1175], 1997 [697 So.2d 84], and 2007 [969 So.2d 245], and 2014. See also SC03-629-[869-So,2d 1205 (Fla.2004-) ■]■■
25.15 DRUG-ABUSE — DELIVERY, POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DELIVER, OR MANUFACTURE WITH INTENT TO DELIVER DRUG PARAPHERNALIA
§ 893.147(2), Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of (crime charged), the State must prove the following (applicable number-) three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) [delivered] [possessed with intent to deliver] [manufactured with intent to deliver] drug paraphernalia.
[possessed with intent to-deliver]
[manufactured with intent to deliver]
drug paraphernalia.
Give only-if possession is chargedr
2. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the drug paraphernalia.
3. (Defendant) knew or reasonably should have known that the drug paraphernalia would be used to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce a controlled substance into the human body (specific substance alleged).
Possession. Give if possession with intent to deliver is charged.
To “possess” means to have personal charge of-or exercise the right of ownership,-management, or control over the thing possessed.
Possession may be actual or constructive.
There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and constructive possession.
Actual possession of drug paraphernalia means the person is aware of the presence of the paraphernalia and:
a. The drug paraphernalia is in the hand of or on the person, or
b. The drug paraphernalia is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or
c. The drug paraphernalia is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.
Give-if applicable.-
Mere proximity to a paraphernalia is not sufficient-to establish control over that-Gontrolled-substance-when it is-not in-a place over which the person has control.
Constructive possession of drug paraphernalia means the person is aware of the presence of the drug paraphernalia, the drug paraphernalia is in a place over which the (defendant) person has control, and the person has the ability to control the drug paraphernalia or — in •which-the (defendant) has concealed it.
Mere proximity to drug paraphernalia is not sufficient to establish control over that drug paraphernalia when the drug *238 paraphernalia is in a place that the person does not control.
In order to establish (defendant’s) constructive possession of a controlled substance if the-controlled substanc-e drug paraphernalia that was ⅛ in a place over which the-(defendant) [he][she] 4oes did not have control, the State must prove the-(defendanfe) (1) knew that the drug paraphernalia was within [his][her] presence has the control over the controlled substance and (2) knowledge that the-controlled substance-was within the (defendant’s) presence exercised control or ownership over the drug paraphernalia itself.
Possession of drug paraphernalia may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be aware of the presence of the drug paraphernalia and may jointly possess an article,.exercising exercise control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that- ar-tic-Ie the drug paraphernalia.
If a person has exclusive possession of a- paraphernalia,-knowledge of its presence may be inferred- or-assumed.
If-a-person-does not have exclusive possession- of — a—paraphernalia, knowledge-ofits-presence may not be inferred or-assumed.
Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Meme v. State, 72 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011),
a.had direct physical custody of drug paraphernalia, [or]
b. was within ready reach of drug paraphernalia and the drug paraphernalia was under [his][her] control, [or]
c. had exclusive control of the place where drug paraphernalia was located,
you may infer that [he][she] was aware of the presence of the drug paraphernalia and had the ability to control it.
If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where the drug paraphernalia was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had knowledge of the presence of the drug paraphernalia or the ability to control it, in the absence of other incriminating evidence.
Give if applicable. See Duncan v. State, 986 So.2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the drug paraphernalia and had the ability to control it if [he][she] had joint control over the place where the drug paraphernalia was located, and the drug paraphernalia was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the defendant.
Delwe-r-. — Give if-delivery — is charged:- § 893,02(5), -F-la-Stalr
“Deliver” or “delivery-’-means the actual, constructive, or attempted -transfer-from one person-to another of paraphernalia, whether-or-not there is-an-ageney relationship,
Manufacture. — Give if ■manufacture is charged-.-§ 893.0%(13)(a), Fla.Stat.
“Manufacture” means-the production, preparation^paekaging, labeling or relabeling, propagation, compounding, — cultivating, growing, conversion or pro *239 cessing-of -a-controlled substance, either directly — or indirectly. — Manufacturing can be-by-extraction from substances of natural — origin,—or—independently—by means of■ chemical synthesis. — It can also be by a combination of extraction and chemical sjmthesis.
Drug Paraphernalia. § 893.H5, Fla. Stat.
The term “drug paraphernalia” means all equipment, products, and materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance in violation of this chapter. It includes, but is not limited to:
1. Kits used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, or harvesting of any species of plant which is a controlled substance or from which a controlled substance can be derived.
2. Kits used, intended for use, or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, or preparing controlled substances.
3. Isomerization devices used, intended for use, or designed for use in increasing the potency of any species of plant which is a controlled substance.
4. Testing equipment used, intended for use, or designed for use in identifying, or in analyzing the strength, effectiveness, or purity of, controlled substances.
5. Scales and balances used, intended for use, or designed for use in weighing or measuring controlled substances.
6. Diluents and adulterants, such as quinine hydrochloride, mannitol, man-nite, dextrose, and lactose used, intended for use, or designed for use in cutting controlled substances.
7. Separation gins and sifters used, intended for use, or designed for use in removing twigs and seeds from, or in otherwise cleaning or refining, cannabis.
8. Blenders, bowls, containers, spoons, and mixing devices used, intended for use, or designed for use in compounding controlled substances.
9. Capsules, balloons, envelopes, and other containers used, intended for use, or designed for use in packaging small quantities of controlled substances.
10. Containers and other objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in storing or concealing controlled substances.
11. Hypodermic syringes, needles, and other objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in parenterally injecting controlled substances into the human body.
12. Objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis, cocaine, hashish, or hashish oil into the human body, such as:
a. Metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal bowls.
*240 b. Water pipes.
e. Roach clips: meaning objects used to hold burning material, such as a cannabis cigarette, that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand.
Relevant factors. § 893.U6, Fla. Stat.
In addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following factors shall be considered in determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia:
1. Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use.
2. The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this act.
3. The proximity of the object to controlled substances.
4. The existence of any residue of controlled substances on the object.
5. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to persons whom [he][she] knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to facilitate a violation of this act. The innocence of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, as to a direct violation of this act shall not prevent a finding that the object is intended for use, or designed for use, as drug paraphernalia.
6. Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use.
7. Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use.
10. Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products.
11. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object or objects to the total sales of the business enterprise.
12. The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community.
Knowledge of the illicit nature-of-the controlled substance. — Give■ if ■ applicable.- § 893.101(2) andr-(3)-F-lar-§t&tr
Knowledge of the illicit-nature-of-the controlled substance is not- anr-element of-the-offense of (insert name-of-offense charged-)- — Lack of knowledge-of-the-illicit nature of a-controlled substance is an affirmative defense, — (Defendant) has raised this affirmative defense, ■ -However, you-are permitted to presume-that (defendant)-w-as-aware of -the-illieit-na-ture of the controlled-substance if you *241 find that (defendant) was in actual or constructive-possession of-the- controlled substance.
If — fr-om- the evidence — you are convinced that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the - controlled — substance, and-all-of-the elements-of- -the charge have been-proved, you -should find (defendant) guilty,
If-you have a reasonable doubt on the question-of-whether (defendant) knew of the illicit-nature of the controlled substance, you should find (defendant) not guilty,
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 [543 So.2d 1205], 1997 [697 So.2d 84], and-2007 [969 So.2d 245], and 2014. ge&-also-SC03-629 [869 So.2d 1205-(-Fla.2004) ].
25.16 DRUG ABUSE — DELIVERY OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA TO A MINOR
§ 893.147(3)(a), Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Delivery of Drug Paraphernalia to a Minor, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) delivered drug paraphernalia to (person alleged).
2. (Defendant) knew or reasonably should have known that the drug paraphernalia would be used to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce a controlled substance into the human body (specific substance alleged).
3. When the delivery was made, (defendant) was 18 years old or over and (person alleged) was under 18 years old.
Deliver. ■§ 893.02)(5), Fla. Stat
“Deliver” or “delivery”-means the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer from-one person to another-of-paraphernalia, whether or not-there is an agency relationship.
Drug Paraphernalia. § 893.1⅛5, Fla. Stat.
The term “drug paraphernalia” means all equipment, products, and materials of any kind which are used, intended for *242 use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance in violation of this chapter. It includes, but is not limited to:
1. Kits used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, or harvesting of any species of plant which is a controlled substance or from which a controlled substance can be derived.
2. Kits used, intended for use, or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, or preparing controlled substances.
3. Isomerization devices used, intended for use, or designed for use in increasing the potency of any species of plant which is a controlled substance.
4. Testing equipment used, intended for use, or designed for use in identifying, or in analyzing the strength, effectiveness, or purity of, controlled substances.
5. Scales and balances used, intended for use, or designed for use in weighing or measuring controlled substances.
6. Diluents and adulterants, such as quinine hydrochloride, mannitol, mannite, dextrose, and lactose used, intended for use, or designed for use in cutting controlled substances.
7. Separation gins and sifters used, intended for use, or designed for use in removing twigs and seeds from, or in otherwise cleaning or refining, cannabis.
8. Blenders, bowls, containers, spoons, and mixing devices used, intended for use, or designed for use in compounding controlled substances.
9. Capsules, balloons, envelopes, and other containers used, intended for use, or designed for use in packaging small quantities of controlled substances.
10. Containers and other objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in storing or concealing controlled substances.
11. Hypodermic syringes, needles, and other objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in parenterally injecting controlled substances into the human body.
12. Objects used, intended for use, or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis, cocaine, hashish, or hashish oil into the human body, such as:
a. Metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal bowls.
e. Roach clips: meaning objects used to hold burning material, such as a cannabis cigarette, that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand.
*243 g. Chamber pipes.
l. Bongs. .
Relevant factors. § 893.14-6, Fla. Stat.
In addition to all other logically relevant factors, the following factors shall be considered in determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia:
1. Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use.
2. The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this act.
4. The existence of any residue of controlled substances on. the object.
5. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to persons whom he knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to facilitate a violation of this act. The innocence of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, as to a direct violation of this act shall not prevent a finding that the object is intended for use, or designed for use, as drug paraphernalia.
6. Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use.
7. Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use.
10. Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such as a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products.
11. Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object or objects to the total sales of the business enterprise.
12. The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community.
Knowledge of the-illicit nattire of the controlled substance, — Give if applicable,■ §-893.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat.
Knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance-is not an element of-the offense of (insert name of offense charged). — Lack of knowledge-of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense, — (-Defendant) has raised this affirmative defense, — Howev-er7-you are permitted to presume that (defendant)-was aware of the illicit nature-of the controlled substance if you find-that (defendant)-was- in actual or constructive possession-of the controlled substance,
If from the evidence you- are convinced that-(defendant) knew-of the illicit-nature of the controlled substance, and-all-of the elements-of-the charge *244 have been proved, you should-find-(4efendant) guilty.
If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of-whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the-controlled substance, you should find-(defendant) not guilty-.
No lesser included offenses have been identified for this offense.
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 2007 [969 So.2d 245] and 2014.
25.17 CONTRABAND IN COUNTY DETENTION FACILITY
§ 951.22, Fla. — Stat.
To prove the crime of (crime charged) Contraband in a County Detention Facility, the State must prove the following two three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of an item.
[introduced contraband into] [knowingly possessed contraband ⅜
[gave contraband-to an inmate in]
[received contraband from an in-m<ifp ini xttCtUv*XTj
[took contraband from]
[attempted-to take or send contraband from]
a county detention facility.
2. (Defendant) did not do-so-through regular-channels as duly authorized by the Sheriff-or-officer in charge of the facility.
Give as applicable.
a.introduced the item into a county detention facility.
b. possessed the item upon the grounds of a county detention facility.
c. gave the item to an inmate of a county detention facility.
d. received the item from an inmate of a county detention facility.
e. took the item from a county detention facility.
f. attempted to [take] [send] the item from a county detention facility.
3. The item was:
a. a written communication to give to or receive from an inmate.
b. a recorded communication to give to or receive from an inmate.
c. currency or coin to give to or receive from an inmate.
d. an article of [food] [clothing] to give to or receive from an inmate.
e. a tobacco product.
f. a cigarette.
g. a cigar.
h. a beverage that causes or may cause an intoxicating effect.
i. a narcotic, hypnotic, or excita-tive drug or drug of any kind or nature.
j. a controlled substance.
k. a firearm.
l. any instrumentality customarily used or which is intended to be used as a dangerous weapon.
m. any instrumentality of any nature that may be or is intended to be used as an aid in effecting or attempting to effect an escape from a county facility.
*245 The court now instructs you that for purposes of this offense, “contraband” meansi
Select definition depending upon item alleged.
[any- currency or coin]
[any-article of food-or-clothing]
[any^-w-ritten or reeorded communication]
[any intoxicating beverage or bever-
age which causes -or-may cause an intoxicating effect]
tanyr narcotic, hypnotic, or excita-tive-drug]
[■any drug of any kind, — including nasabinhalators]
[sleeping pill, barbiturate]
[any controlled substance. — [ (Item alleged)] is a controlled substance]
[any firearm]
[any-instrumentality that may be or is intended to be nsed-as a dangerous weapon]
[any instrumentality-fchat may be or is-intended to be used as an aid in attempting to escape].
Give in all cases. § 951.23(l)(a) Fla. Stat.
“County detention facility” means a county jail, a county stockade, a county work camp, a^county prison camp, a county residential probation center, and any other place except a municipal detention facility used by a county or county officer for the detention of persons charged with or convicted of either felony or misdemeanor used by a county or — county—officer to — detain persons charged-with or convicted of-crimes, in-
cluding the grounds thereof.
§ 951.23(l)(b) Fla. Stat.
“County residential probation center” means a county-operated facility housing offenders serving misdemeanor sentences or first-time felony sentences.
§ 951.23(l)(d) Fla. Stat.
“Municipal detention facility” means a city jail, a city stockade, a city prison camp, and any other place except a county detention facility used by a municipality or municipal officer for the detention of persons charged with or convicted of violation of municipal laws or ordinances.
In-event of municipal-facility involved, see-statute.
To “introduce” means to put inside or into.
Give when the evidence involves an inmate who is not in the facility.
It is unlawful to [give] [receive] a contraband item [to] [from] an inmate of a county detention facility even if the inmate was outside the facility at the time the contraband item was [given] [received].
Give if clothing is alleged. State v. Beaton, 665 So.2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
“Clothing” means things worn to cover the body and limbs.
. Give if currency is alleged. State v. Beaton, 665 So.2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
“Currency” means money or another commodity which is in circulation as a medium of exchange.
Give if weapon -is alleged. State v. Fleming, 606 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
A “weapon” is an instrument that is designed and constructed for use as a weapon, or, if the instrument is capable *246 of being used as a weapon, the defendant used, threatened to use, or intended to use the instrument as a weapon.
Give if tobacco product is alleged. § 210.25(11) Fla. Stat.
“Tobacco products” means loose tobacco suitable for smoking; snuff; snuff flour; cavendish; plug and twist tobacco; fine cuts and other chewing tobaccos; shorts; refuse scraps; clippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco, and other kinds and forms of tobacco prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing; but “tobacco products” does not include cigarettes or cigars.
Give if cigarette is alleged. § 210.01(1) Fla. Stat.
“Cigarette” means any roll for smoking, except one of which the tobacco is fully naturally fermented, without regard to the kind of tobacco or other substances used in the inner roll or the nature or composition of the material in which the roll is wrapped, which is made wholly or in part of tobacco irrespective of size or shape and whether such tobacco is flavored, adulterated or mixed with any other ingredient.
Give if a drug or controlled substance is alleged.
A “drug of any kind” includes [nasal inhalators] [sleeping pills] [barbiturates] [a controlled substance]. (Name of drug or controlled substance) is a [drug] [controlled substance].
Give if firearm is alleged. § 790.001(6) Fla. Stat.
“Firearm” means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive [;the frame or receiver of any such weapon] [any firearm muffler or firearm silencer] [any destructive device] [any machine gun].
Give if possession is alleged.
There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and constructive possession.
Actual possession means the person is aware of the presence of the object and
a. the object is in the hand of or on the person, or
b. the object is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or
c. the object is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.
Constructive possession means the person is aware of the presence of the object, the object is in a place over which the person has control, and the person has the ability to control the object.
Mere proximity to an object is not sufficient to establish control over that object when the object is in a place that the person does not control.
In order to establish (defendant’s) constructive possession of an object that was in a place [he] [she] did not control, the State must prove (defendant) (1) knew that the object was within [his][her] presence and (2) exercised control or ownership over the object itself.
*247 Possession of an object may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be aware of the presence of an object and may jointly exercise control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that object.
Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Meme v. State, 72 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011),
a. had direct physical custody of the object, [or]
b. was within ready reach of the object and the object was under [his][her] control, [or]
c. had exclusive control of the place where the object was located,
you may infer that [he] [she] was aware of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it.
If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where an object was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had knowledge of the presence of the object or the ability to control it, in the absence of other incriminating evidence.
Give if applicable. Duncan v. State, 986 So.2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the object and had the ability to control it if [he][she] had joint control over the place where the object was located, and the object was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the defendant.
Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. § 893.101(2) Fla. Stat.
Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is a defense to possession of a controlled substance. Accordingly, the defendant is not guilty of possessing a controlled substance if [he][shej did not know of the illicit nature of the substance.
You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that [he][she] knew of the presence of the substance and exercised management, control, or ownership over the substance.
If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proved, you should find [him][her] guilty.
If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him][her] not guilty of possession of a controlled substance.
Affirmative defense of permission. Give if the defendant has satisfied his or her burden of production. See Wright v. State, W So.2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
It is a defense to the crime of Contraband in a County Detention Facility if the defendant used regular channels and was authorized by the sheriff or officer in charge of the detention facility to [introduce][possess] _[give][receive][take][attempt to take or send] the contraband item [into] [from] the facility. The defendant has raised this defense.
*248 If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant used regular channels and had authorization from the sheriff or officer in charge of the detention facility, you should find [him][her] not guilty.
If the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not use regular channels or did not have authorization from the sheriff or officer in charge of the detention facility, you should find [him][her] guilty, if all the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
See 25.2 for definition of-“posse$sionA
This instruction was adopted in 1987 and amended in 1989 [543 So.2d 1205] and 2014.
25.18 CONTRABAND IN JUVENILE [DETENTION FACILITY] [COMMITMENT PROGRAM]
§ 985=4046985.711, Fla. — Stat.
To prove the crime of [introducing} [removing] [possession] of contraband in-a-juvenile-detention-faeility Contraband in Juvenile [Detention Facility][Commitment Program], the State must prove the following two three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
L (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of an item.
[-introduced-eontraband into]
[-knowingly — possessed—contraband ¾
[gave contraband to-a-juvenile offender-in-]
[attempted-to-take or send contraband-from]
[sent contraband-to-}
a [juvenile -detention facility]-[juvenile commitment program],
2. (Defendant) did not — do so as authorized- by — the [program — policy] [operating-procedure] [facility — superintendent] — [program—director] [manager]»
a. possessed an item while upon the grounds of a juvenile [detention facility] [commitment program].
*249 b. introduced the item into or upon the grounds of a juvenile [detention facility] [commitment program],
c. [took] [attempted to take] [sent] [attempted to send] an item from a juvenile [detention facility] [commitment program],
d. [transmitted] [attempted to transmit] an item to a juvenile offender into or upon the grounds of a juvenile [detention facility] [commitment program],
e. [caused][attempted to cause] an item to be [transmitted to] [received by] a juvenile offender upon the grounds of a juvenile [detention facility] [commitment program],
a. an unauthorized article of [food] [clothing],
b. a beverage that causes or may cause an intoxicating effect.
c. a controlled substance. (Name of controlled substance alleged) is a controlled substance.
d. a prescription or nonprescription drug that has a hypnotic, stimulating, or depressing effect.
e. a firearm,
f. a weapon of any kind.
g. an explosive substance.
Definitions. Give as applicable.
§ 985.03(19), Fla. Stat.
A “juvenile detention facility” is a facility used pending court adjudication or disposition or execution of a court order for the temporary care of a child alleged or found to have committed a violation of law.
A “juvenile commitment program” is a facility used for the commitment of adjudicated delinquents.
“Introduce” means to put inside or into.
Give if clothing is alleged. State v. Becton, 665 SoM 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
“Clothing”' means things worn to cover the body and limbs.
Give if weapon is alleged. State v. Fleming, 606 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
A “weapon” is an instrument that is designed and constructed for use as a weapon, or, if the instrument is capable of being used as a weapon, the defendant used, threatened to use, or intended to use the instrument as a weapon.
Give if firearm is alleged. § 790.001(6) Fla. Stat.
“Firearm” means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive [;the frame or receiver of any such weapon] [any firearm muffler or firearm silencer] [any destructive device] [any machine gun].
There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and constructive possession.
Actual possession means the person is aware of the presence of the object and
b. the object is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or
*250 c. the object is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.
Constructive possession means the person is aware of the presence of the object, the object is in a place over which the person has control, and the person has the ability to control the object.
Mere proximity to an object is not sufficient to establish control over that object when the object is in a place that the person does not control.
In order to establish (defendant’s) constructive possession of an object that was in a place [he][she] did not control, the State must prove (defendant) (1) knew that the object was within [his][her] presence and (2) exercised management, control, or ownership over the object itself.
Possession of an object may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be aware of the presence of an object and may jointly exercise control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that object.
Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 SoJd 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Meme v. State, 72 So.Sd 251 (Fla. Jffk DCA 2011).
a.had direct physical custody of the object, [or]
b. was within ready reach of the object and the object was under [his][her] control, [or]
c. had exclusive control of the place where the object was located, you may infer that [he][she] was aware of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it.
If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where an object was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had knowledge of the presence of the object or the ability to control it, in the absence of other incriminating evidence.
Give if applicable. Duncan v. State, 986 So.2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the object and had the ability to control it if [he][she] had joint control over the place where the object was located, and the object was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the defendant.
Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. § 893.101(2) Fla. Stat.
Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is a defense to possession of a controlled substance. Accordingly, the defendant is not guilty of possessing a controlled substance if [he][she] did not know of the illicit nature of the substance.
You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that [he][she] knew of the presence of the substance and exercised control or ownership over the substance.
*251 If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proved, you should find [him][her] guilty.
If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him][her] not guilty of possession of a controlled substance.
Affirmative defense of permission. Give if the defendant has satisfied his or her burden of production. See Wright v. State, m SoM 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
It is a defense to the crime of Contraband in Juvenile [Detention Facility] [Commitment Program] if the defendant’was authorized through program policy or operating procedure or had the permission of the facility superintendent, program director, or manager of the [detention facility] [commitment program] to [possess] [introduce] [take] [attempt to take] [send] [attempt to send] [transmit] [attempt to transmit] [cause to transmit] [attempt to cause to transmit] the contraband item [into] [from] the facility. The defendant has raised this defense.
If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was authorized through program policy or operating procedure or had the permission of the facility superintendent, program director, or manager of the [detention facility] [commitment program], you should find [him][her] not guilty of Contraband in a Juvenile [Detention Facility] [Commitment Program].
If the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have authorization through program policy or operating procedure or did not have the permission of the facility superintendent, program director, or manager of the [detention facility] [commitment program], you should find [him][her] guilty, if all the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Possession
Possession may-be actual or constructive.
Actual possession means:
⅜ — The thing is in the hand of or on tho person,-or
h-. — T-he-thing is in a container in tho hand of or on-the-person, or
⅛ — The thing-is-so- close-as-to be-within ■ready reach and is under the control of-the-person,
Give-if-applicable.
Mere proximity to a thing is hot sufficient to establish control over that thing when the thing is not in a place over which the person has control,
Constructive — possession—means—the thing is in-a-place over which- the person has-control, or in-which the person has concealed it,
Give-if-applicable. — See Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996).
If-a thing is in a place over which the person does-not have control^- in-order to establish — constructive—possession—the State must prove the person’s (1) control over- the thing, (2)-knowledge that the thing was-within the person’s-presence, and-(3)--knowledge of the illicit nature of the thing.
*252 For purposes of this offense,---contea-band”-meansi
[any unauthorized-ar-ticle of food or-clothing}
[any intoxicating beverage or any beverage-that-causes or may cause-an intoxicating effect]
[any controlled-substance. — (Sab-stance alleged) -is-a — controlled substance.] See § 893.02(h), Fla,Stat*
[any prescription-en-nonprescription drug that has a-hypnotic-, stimulating^ or depressing effect]
[any-fírear-m or weapon of any-kind or any explosive substance^
Give as applicable.-
A “juvenile detention facility-’-’ — is—a facility-used-pending court adjudication or — disposition or execution-of — a-cour-t order for the temporary-care-of-a-ehild alleged or-found- to have committed a violation-of-lawr
A “juvenile commitment program” is a facility-used-for the commitment-of adjudicated delinquents*
This instruction is based-on-the-text-of §■ .985=4046,-F-feStaM-l-QQg). In Chicone v. State, 684.So;2d--736-(-F-Ia4996), the court defined the. elements-of-constructive possession that apply if the defendant has-no control- ■ over-the-place where the contraband was found.
This instruction was adopted in March 2000 and amended in 2014.
25. 20 POSSESSION OF CONTRABAND [IN] [UPON THE] GROUNDS OF A STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
§ 944.47(l)(c) Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Possession of Contraband [In] [Upon the Grounds of] a State Correctional Facility, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) possessed
a. [written or recorded communication] [currency or coin] [an article of [food] [clothing]] that was [given or transmitted] [intended to be given or transmitted] to an inmate of a state correctional institution.
b. [an intoxicating beverage] [a beverage which causes or may cause an intoxicating effect.]
c. a controlled substance. (Name of controlled substance) is a controlled substance.
d. any prescription or non-prescription drug having a hypnotic, stimulating, or depressing effect.
e. [a firearm] [a weapon of any kind] [an explosive substance].
*253 f. any [cellular telephone] [portable communication device] intentionally and unlawfully introduced inside the secure perimeter of the state correctional institution.
2. At the time, (defendant) was [an inmate] [upon the grounds] of a state correctional facility.
Give in all cases. § 9⅛⅛.02(8) Fla. Stat.
“State correctional facility” means any prison, road camp, prison industry, prison forestry camp, or any prison camp or prison farm or other correctional facility, temporary or permanent, in which prisoners are housed, worked, or maintained, under the custody and jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections.
Give if clothing is alleged. State v. Becton, 665 So.2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
Give if currency is alleged. State v. Becton, 665 So.2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
“Currency” means money or another commodity which is in circulation as a medium of exchange.
Give if weapon is alleged. State v. Fleming, 606 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
A “weapon” is an instrument that is designed and constructed for use as a weapon, or, if the instrument is capable of being used as a weapon, the defendant used, threatened to use, or intended to use the instrument as a weapon.
“Firearm” means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive [;the frame or receiver of any such weapon] [any firearm muffler or firearm silencer] [any destructive device] [any machine gun].
Give if portable communication device is alleged. § 91i.kA7(l)(a)6 Fla. Stat.
The term “portable communication device” means any device carried, worn, or stored which is designed or intended to receive or transmit verbal or written messages, access or store data, or connect electronically to the Internet or any other electronic device and which allows communications in any form. Such devices include, but are not limited to, portable two-way pagers, hand-held radios, cellular telephones, Blackberry-type devices, personal digital assistants or PDA’s, laptop computers, or any components of these devices which are intended to be used to assemble such devices. The term also includes any new technology that is developed for similar purposes. [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.]
There are two ways to exercise control: actual possession and constructive possession.
Actual possession means the person is aware of the presence of the object and
*254 b. the object is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or
c. the object is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.
Constructive possession means the person is aware of the presence of the object, the object is in a place over which the person has control, and the person has the ability to control the object.
Mere proximity to an object is not sufficient to establish control over that object when the object is in a place that the person does not control.
In order to establish (defendant’s) constructive possession of an object that was in a place [he][she] did not control, the State must prove (defendant) (1) knew that the object was within [his][her] presence and (2) exercised control or ownership over the object itself.
Possession of an object may be sole or joint, that is, two or more persons may be aware of the presence of an object and may jointly exercise control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that object.
Exclusive control. Henderson v. State, 88 So.Sd 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Meme v. State, 72 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
b. was within ready reach of the object and the object was under [his][her] control, [or]
c. had exclusive control of the place where the object was located,
you may infer that [he][she] was aware of the presence of the substance and had the ability to control it.
If (defendant) did not have exclusive control over the place where an object was located, you may not infer [he] [[she] had knowledge of the presence of the object or the ability to control it, in the absence of other incriminating evidence.
Give if applicable. Duncan v. State, 986 SoM 658 (Fla. fth DCA 2008).
However, you may infer that (defendant) knew of the presence of the object and had the ability to control it if [he][she] had joint control over the place where the object was located, and the object was located in a common area in plain view and in the presence of the defendant.
Affirmative defense: Lack of knowledge of illicit nature. § 893.101(2) Fla. Stat. Give if applicable.
Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is a defense to the crime of Possession of a Controlled Substance. Accordingly, the defendant is not guilty of possessing a controlled substance if [he][she] did not know of the illicit nature of the substance.
You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that [he][she] knew of the presence of the substance and exercised control or ownership over the substance.
*255 If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proved, you should find [him][her] guilty.
If you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him] [her] not guilty of possession of a controlled substance.
Affirmative defense: Authorization. Give if the defendant has satisfied Ms or her burden of production. See Wright v. State, m So.2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
It is a defense to the crime of Possession of Contraband [In] [Upon the Grounds of] a State Correctional Facility if the defendant was authorized by the officer in charge of the correctional institution to possess the item [in] [upon the grounds of] a state correctional institution. The defendant has raised this defense.
If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant had authorization from the officer in charge of the correctional institution, you should find [him][her] not guilty.
If the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not have authorization from the officer in charge of the correctional institution, you should find [him][her] guilty, if all the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
*256 This instruction was adopted in 2014.
25.21 [INTRODUCTION] [REMOVAL] OF CONTRABAND [INTO] TFROMI A STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
§ 944.47(l)(a), Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of [Introduction] [Removal] of Contraband [into] [from] a State Correctional Institution, the State must prove the following [three] [four] elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Defendant) [introduced into or upon the grounds of] [took] [attempted to [take] [send]] an item [into] [from] a state correctional institution.
2. (Defendant) had knowledge of the presence of the item.
a. a [written] [recorded] communication.
b. [currency] [or] [coin].
c. an article of [food] [clothing].
d. an intoxicating beverage or a beverage which causes or may cause an intoxicating effect.
e. a controlled substance. (Name of controlled substance) is a controlled substance.
f. any prescription or nonprescription drug having a hypnotic, stimulating, or depressing effect.
g. [a firearm] [a weapon of any kind] [an explosive substance].
h. any [cellular telephone] [or] [portable communication device] intentionally and unlawfully introduced inside the secure perimeter of a state correctional institution].
Give element # j if element # 3a, 3b, or Sc is given.
4, (Defendant) [gave or transmitted] [or] [intended to give or transmit] the [written communication] [recorded communication] [currency] [coin] [article of food] [article of clothing] to an inmate of the state correctional institution.
Give in all cases. State Correctional Facility. § 944-02(8) Fla. Stat.
“State correctional facility” means any prison, road camp, prison industry, prison forestry camp, or any prison camp or prison farm or other correctional facility, temporary or permanent, in which prisoners are housed, worked, or maintained, under the custody and jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections.
Give jf firearm is alleged. § 790.001(6) Fla. Stat.
“Firearm” means any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive [;the frame or receiver of any such weapon] [any firearm muffler or firearm silencer] [any destructive device] [any machine gun]. Give if clothing is alleged. State v. Becton, 665 So.2d 358 (Fla. 5th PGA 1995).
Give if currency is alleged. State v. Becton, 665 So.2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
“Currency” means money or another commodity which is in circulation as a medium of exchange.
*257 Give if weapon is alleged. State v. Fleming, 606 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
A “weapon” is an instrument that is designed and constructed for use as a weapon, or, if the instrument is capable of being used as a weapon, the defendant used, threatened to use, or intended to use the instrument as a weapon.
Give if portable communication device is alleged. § 9kh.V7(l)(a)(9) Fla. Stat.
“Portable communication device” means any device carried, worn, or stored which is designed or intended to receive or transmit verbal or written messages, access or store data, or connect electronically to the Internet or any other electronic device and which allows communications in any form. Such devices include, but are not limited to, portable two-way pagers, hand-held radios, cellular telephones, Blackberry-type devices, personal digital assistants or PDA’s, laptop computers, or any components of these devices which are intended to be used to assemble such devices. The term also includes any new technology that is developed for similar purposes. [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. § 893.101(2) Fla. Stat.
Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is a defense to this charge. Accordingly, the defendant is not guilty of this charge if [he][she] did not know of the illicit nature of the controlled substance.
You are permitted to presume that (defendant) was aware of the illicit nature of the controlled substance if you find that [he][she] knew of the presence of the substance and exercised control or ownership over the substance.
If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, and all of the elements of the charge have been proven, you should find [him][her] guilty.
If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether (defendant) knew of the illicit nature of the controlled substance, you should find [him][her] not guilty.
Affirmative defense: Authorization. Give if the defendant has satisfied his or her burden of 'production. See Wright v. State, W So.2d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
It is a defense to the crime of [Introduction] [Removal] of Contraband [into] [from] a State Correctional Institution if the defendant used regular channels and was authorized by the officer in charge of the correctional institution to [introduce][take][send] the item [into] [from] the state correctional institution. The defendant has raised this defense.
If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant used regular channels and had authorization from the officer in charge of the correctional institution, you should find [him][her] not guilty.
If the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not use regular channels or did not have authorization from the officer in charge of the correctional institution, you *258 should find [him][her] guilty, if all the elements of the charge have also been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
[INTRODUCTION] [REMOVAL] OF CONTRABAND [INTO] [FROM] A STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION — 944.47(l)(a) CATEGORY ONE_CATEGORY TWO_FLA. STAT. INS. NO. Possession of a Controlled 893.13 25.7 Substance, if a controlled substance is the contraband alleged _ Possession of a Firearm or a 790.23 10.15 Concealed Weapon By a Convicted Felon, if a firearm or concealed weapon is the contraband alleged and and the _possessor is an inmate._ Carrying a Concealed 790.01(2) 10.1 _Firearm_ Carrying a Concealed 790.01(1) 10.1 Weapon
This instruction was adopted in 2014.
. In State v. Adkins, this Court found that section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2011), had "expressly eliminate[d] knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance as an element of controlled substance offenses and expressly create[d] an affirmative defense of lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance.” 96 So.3d at 416 (plurality opinion with three justices concurring and two justices concurring in result). The Court upheld the statute as constitutional against a facial due process challenge. Id. at 412, 423 (plurality opinion with three justices concurring and two justices concurring in result).
. In Smith v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held, in a case involving a charge of criminal conspiracy where the defendant claimed to have withdrawn from the conspiracy, that there was no violation of due process in placing the burden of proving withdrawal on the defendant. 133 S.Ct. at 720-21.
. As currently codified the statute is identical. See § 893.101, Fla. Stat. (2014). This statute was created by chapter 2002-258, Laws of Florida, which provided:
Section 1. Section 893.101, Florida Statutes, is created to read:
893.101 Legislative findings and intent.—
(1) The Legislature finds that the cases of Scott v. State, [808 So.2d 166] (Fla.2002), and Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla. 1996), holding that the state must prove that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of a controlled substance found in his or her actual or constructive possession, were contrary to legislative intent.
(2) The Legislature finds that knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element of any offense under this chapter. Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense to the offenses of this chapter.
(3)In those instances in which a defendant asserts the affirmative defense described in this section, the possession of a controlled substance, whether actual or constructive, shall give rise to a permissive presumption that the possessor knew of the illicit nature of the substance. It is the intent of the Legislature that, in those cases where such an affirmative defense is raised, the jury shall be instructed on the permissive presumption provided in this subsection.
. With respect to Instruction 25.4 (Delivery to or Use of Minor), we authorize the amendment adding "knowledge of presence" as an element, but not the explanatory note or the comment.
. The amendments as reflected in the appendix are to the Criminal Jury Instructions as they appear on the Court’s website at www. floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/ instructions.shtml. We recognize that there may be minor discrepancies between the instructions as they appear on the website and the published versions of the instructions. Any discrepancies as to instructions authorized for publication and use after October 25, 2007, should be resolved by reference to the published opinion of this Court authorizing the instruction.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
153 So. 3d 192, 2014 WL 6977938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-standard-jury-instructions-in-criminal-casesreport-no-2013-05-fla-2014.