Quaintance v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Quaintance v. State

845 So. 2d 294, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7121, 2003 WL 21087140

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 15, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-2974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 845 So. 2d 294 (Quaintance v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Quaintance v. State, 845 So. 2d 294, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7121, 2003 WL 21087140 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse Appellant’s conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine and remand for a new trial. Appellant was tried for possession of cocaine on January 13, 2002. For any offense occurring prior to May 13, 2002, an essential element of the crime of possession of an illegal substance was knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance.

At trial, Appellant testified and denied possession of any drugs or knowledge that cocaine was present. This denial placed at issue all elements of the offense, including knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance. Failure to instruct the jury on the element of knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance in his possession was reversible error. See Goodman v. State, 839 So.2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Scott [295]*295v. State, 808 So.2d 166 (Fla.2002); Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAVIS, LEWIS, and HAWKES, JJ„ Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse Appellant’s conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine and remand for a new trial. Appellant was tried for possession of cocaine on January 13, 2002. For any offense occurring prior to May 13, 2002, an essential element of the crime of possession of an illegal substance was knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance.

At trial, Appellant testified and denied possession of any drugs or knowledge that cocaine was present. This denial placed at issue all elements of the offense, including knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance. Failure to instruct the jury on the element of knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance in his possession was reversible error. See Goodman v. State, 839 So.2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Scott [295]*295v. State, 808 So.2d 166 (Fla.2002); Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DAVIS, LEWIS, and HAWKES, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

845 So. 2d 294, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7121, 2003 WL 21087140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quaintance-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack