Mary Jane Terry v. State of Florida

267 So. 3d 566
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 3, 2019
Docket17-5386
StatusPublished

This text of 267 So. 3d 566 (Mary Jane Terry v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mary Jane Terry v. State of Florida, 267 So. 3d 566 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D17-5386 _____________________________

MARY JANE TERRY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. Wesley R. Douglas, Judge.

April 3, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Mary Jane Terry was convicted of manufacturing cannabis in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes. On appeal, she contends that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. We agree and reverse.

Officers responded to the home where Terry and at least two other people lived. The officers immediately noticed marijuana plants growing outside. One officer honked his horn, hoping a resident would come outside. Terry did, and the officers asked her if there was marijuana growing on the property. Terry acknowledged there was, showing officers the plants.

We review de novo an order denying a motion for judgment of acquittal. Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002). We will reverse only if we conclude no “rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. Here, although there was ample evidence that Terry was aware of the marijuana plants, there was no evidence from which a jury could conclude that she was responsible for the “production, preparation, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance.” See § 893.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. (defining “manufactured” for purposes of § 893.13). We therefore conclude that the trial court should have granted an acquittal.

REVERSED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

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

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Jessica J. Yeary, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate and Benjamin L. Hoffman, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

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

Related

Pagan v. State
830 So. 2d 792 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
267 So. 3d 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mary-jane-terry-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2019.