Greenwade v. State
124 So. 3d 215
Fla.2013Background
- Officers executed a search warrant at Greenwade’s residence and observed him near a garage table; he fled, was detained, and admitted the green bag in the garage contained cocaine and led officers to nine individually wrapped one‑ounce baggies of off‑white powder.
- Officers field‑tested the nine baggies (results not clearly in record) and later the property room combined the powders into one Ziploc; the FDLE chemist received a single commingled sample that tested positive for cocaine and weighed 234.5 grams.
- Greenwade was tried for trafficking (200–400 grams), convicted by a jury, and sentenced to a mandatory minimum; he appealed arguing the State improperly commingled separately wrapped packets before chemical testing each packet.
- The First District affirmed, adopting a totality‑of‑circumstances approach allowing commingling when surrounding facts support an inference all packets contained contraband, and certified conflict with Ross, Safford, and Sheridan.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review, held that when separately wrapped packets of a white powder that poses a risk of misidentification are seized, the State must chemically test each packet before aggregating weight, quashed the First District, approved Ross/Safford/Sheridan, and ordered Greenwade’s trafficking conviction reduced to simple possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Greenwade) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may commingle multiple separately wrapped packets of white powder and rely on aggregate chemical testing/weight to meet trafficking weight element | Totality of circumstances permits commingling when surrounding facts (admission, scale, spoon, field tests, packaging) support inference all packets contained cocaine | State must chemically test each individually wrapped packet before aggregation; failure to do so renders weight element unsupported | For separately wrapped packets of a substance prone to misidentification (white powders like cocaine/heroin/meth), State must chemically test each packet before combining and weighing; conviction reversed for trafficking and reduced to possession |
| Applicability of Ross rule across substance types | Legislative policy in Yu supports treating mixtures as mixtures and permits circumstantial proof; totality approach adequate | Ross protects against misidentification risk; different statutes punish counterfeit substances less severely, so safeguards required | Ross rule adopted for powders that risk misidentification; exceptions exist for substances not prone to misidentification (e.g., rock cocaine, marijuana) |
| Whether Yu’s legislative‑policy rationale justifies a broader circumstantial‑evidence approach | Yu’s discussion of mixtures supports commingling and aggregate testing | Yu was a constitutional challenge about mixtures, not proof procedure; Yu doesn’t displace Ross’s evidentiary rule | Yu is inapposite to procedural proof; cannot be used to override requirement of individual chemical testing for powdery substances |
| Whether the First District’s totality‑of‑circumstances test should control Florida law | Totality test prevents arbitrary distinctions and allows juries to infer identity from surrounding facts | Totality test undermines statutory distinctions and risks convicting based on commingling that destroys ability to detect counterfeits | Rejected: uniform rule requiring individual chemical testing for separately wrapped white powder packets upheld, with limited substance‑type exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Yu, 400 So.2d 762 (Fla. 1981) (upheld constitutionality of trafficking statute penalizing mixtures; legislative policy about mixtures discussed)
- Ross v. State, 528 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (holding that when multiple separately wrapped powder packets are seized, each packet must be chemically tested before aggregating weight)
- Safford v. State, 708 So.2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (applied Ross and reversed trafficking conviction where packets were commingled prior to testing)
- Sheridan v. State, 850 So.2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (applied Ross to require separate testing of individually wrapped powder packets)
- Mosley v. State, 100 So.3d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (distinguished Ross where chemist tested aggregate and residues from each emptied baggie, permitting inference each baggie contained cocaine)
- Bond v. State, 538 So.2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (distinguished Ross for rock/crack cocaine; random testing of one rock may suffice)
- Pama v. State, 552 So.2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (rejected Ross‑style rule for large bales of marijuana; circumstantial evidence can identify marijuana across packages)
- Lyons v. State, 807 So.2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (distinguished Ross where two nearly identical bricks were large enough that a jury could infer statutory weight without commingling)
- Bellizia v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 614 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2010) (applied Ross in ineffective‑assistance context where only one of many pellets was tested and aggregate weight was assumed)
- Hernandez v. State, 56 So.3d 752 (Fla. 2010) (reciting elements the State must prove for trafficking: possession, identity, and statutory weight)