Hampton v. State
2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3596
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Hampton was convicted by jury of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine after wiretaps and a co-conspirator’s testimony tied him to Crichlow’s drug network.
- CCIB investigated a Sanford trafficking operation and taped Crichlow, a mid-level supplier, who sold cocaine to Hampton.
- Crichlow testified and explained the meaning of code words used in conversations recorded with Hampton.
- State introduced Crichlow’s testimony and the recorded conversations showing three- to five-ounce cocaine transactions between Crichlow and Hampton.
- Hampton moved for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied; the jury convicted and this appeal followed.
- The court ultimately receded from its Davis v. State (2012) interpretation, holding that conspiracy to traffic can be proven by an agreement to commit any act of trafficking, not necessarily the same act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis governs conspiracy to traffic under the statute. | Hampton—no same-act agreement; Davis controls. | State—statutory text allows any act of trafficking as the conspiracy target; Davis is incorrect. | Davis receded; conspiracy proven under broader §893.135(5) interpretation |
| Whether evidence showing buy-sell trafficking agreements suffices for conspiracy to traffic. | Davis requires identical acts; a buy-sell lacks mutual agreement to the same act. | Agreement to commit trafficking as a whole suffices; buy-sell supports conspiracy. | Yes; evidence of agreed trafficking by Hampton and Crichlow supports conspiracy to traffic |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 95 So.3d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (insufficient evidence where no agreement to commit the same act)
- Schlicher v. State, 13 So.3d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (buy-sell conspiracy lacking same-offense agreement)
- State v. Russell, 611 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (buy-sell evidence sufficient to establish conspiracy to traffic)
- Espinoza v. State, 1 So.3d 1257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (legislative intent to punish traffickers equally with actual trafficking)
- Ellis v. State, 475 So.2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (statutory purposes related to severe punishment for narcotics trafficking)