Sangster v. State
This text of 112 So. 3d 143 (Sangster 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.
Opinion
AFFIRMED. See F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 230 (Fla.2003) (holding that, with two exceptions, a defendant must preserve a claim of insufficiency of the evidence through a timely challenge in the trial court); see also State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412, 423 (Fla.2012) (holding that the Legislature’s decision to make the absence of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance an affirmative defense rather than an element of Florida’s drug offenses was constitutional).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
112 So. 3d 143, 2013 WL 1909028, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sangster-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.