State v. Hayes

446 So. 2d 1185, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12325
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 21, 1984
DocketNo. 82-2327
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 446 So. 2d 1185 (State v. Hayes) 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
State v. Hayes, 446 So. 2d 1185, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12325 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

REVERSED. We believe the trial court erred in ruling that the provisions of section 831.31, Florida Statutes (1981),1 were [1186]*1186facially unconstitutional and dismissing the charges filed against the appellant for allegedly violating the statute.

The appellant contends that the statute is defective because it fails to specifically provide the element of intent to defraud, a defect we found fatal in reviewing another statute in State v. Bussey, 444 So.2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We cannot agree that the lack of such element renders the statute void. Section 831.31, as noted in its title, is directed to the problem of the distribution of counterfeit controlled substances, i.e., substances that may be identified as one thing but are really another. We agree that the statute does not make criminal the innocent possession of a counterfeit controlled substance, i.e., the possession by one who has no knowledge that the substance is counterfeit and who is otherwise lawfully entitled to possess what is apparently a valid controlled substance. Section 831.31 is also unlike section 893.-13(2)(a)7, Florida Statutes (1981), which prohibits one from keeping a lawfully dispensed controlled substance in any container other than the one in which it was originally dispensed. See State v. Walker, 444 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

In conclusion, we uphold the facial constitutionality of section 831.31 and reverse and remand this cause for further proceedings in accord herewith.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

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

Related

JOHNNY RAY GRAHAM v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2022
State v. Pellicci
469 So. 2d 957 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Schiller v. State
447 So. 2d 1025 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
446 So. 2d 1185, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hayes-fladistctapp-1984.