Harris v. State
72 So. 3d 804
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Angelia Harris was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1,000 feet of a park.
- Officers found about 50 crack cocaine rocks weighing approximately 5 grams in Harris's possession, and a bag of the rocks was retrieved from her; no money or drug paraphernalia was recovered on her.
- The officer testified the quantity suggested intent to sell, but acknowledged the lack of paraphernalia and packaging indicating sale, and Harris did not have a crack pipe.
- The trial court denied motions for judgment of acquittal; the jury convicted Harris on the charged count.
- On de novo review, the court must determine whether circumstantial evidence of criminal intent to sell excludes the reasonable hypothesis of personal use.
- The court held the State failed to rebut the reasonable hypothesis of personal use, reversing the conviction and remanding for a simple possession conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence proves intent to sell beyond reasonable doubt | State contends quantity and value show intent to sell. | Harris argues evidence does not exclude personal use, lacking paraphernalia or transaction. | Insufficient evidence excludes personal use; conviction reversed and remanded for possession only. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valentin v. State, 974 So.2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quantity and value may indicate intent but not conclusive; may be personal use)
- McCullough v. State, 541 So.2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (small amounts with lack of corroborating facts insufficient to show intent to sell)
- Glenn v. State, 824 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (large quantity alone not enough; personal use possible)
- Jackson v. State, 818 So.2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (packaging alone insufficient to infer intent to sell)
- Lesane v. State, 895 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (absence of paraphernalia does not establish lack of personal use beyond reasonable doubt)
- Alleyne v. State, 42 So.3d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (concerns the strength of opinion evidence versus corroborating facts)
- Richards v. State, 37 So.3d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (evidence of packaging can support a finding of intent to sell)
- Bedford v. State, 995 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (packaging and quantity can indicate sale intent; otherwise jury question)
- Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla. 2002) (de novo standard governs sufficiency review; circumstantial evidence must exclude personal use)