Quick v. State
2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16641
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Appellant Quick was arrested after being seen drinking in a gas station parking lot, violating a local ordinance; Miranda rights were given.
- A glass pipe with a black substance was found in Quick's pocket after a consent frisk; Quick admitted smoking crack cocaine the day before and sought to buy more.
- The pipe was field-tested positive for cocaine; the crime lab confirmed trace amounts of cocaine in the pipe; marijuana testing was not performed because the pipe would break under marijuana-smoke temperatures.
- Quick denied possessing cocaine and claimed the pipe belonged to another man and that he was smoking marijuana, not cocaine, at the time of arrest.
- Defense requested a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance per § 893.101(2); the trial court denied it.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding Quick presented some evidence supporting the defense and the instruction was required to be given.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the absence of knowledge defense instruction was error | Quick showed evidence supporting lack of knowledge of the illicit nature | State argued the defense not warranted since Quick admitted illegality and no knowledge defense needed | Reversed; trial court erred in denying instruction |
| Whether § 893.101(2) requires a jury instruction on lack of knowledge of illicit nature | Statute creates affirmative defense and instruction must be given if raised | State contends no instruction necessary given Quick's admission and the nature of possession offenses | Instruction must be given when asserted and supported by evidence |
| Whether Miller v. State controls the denial of the instruction | Miller held that lack of knowledge evidence entitled defendant to instruction | Miller distinguished by different facts or demands | Miller supports entitlement to instruction; error to deny |
| Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Absent the instruction, the defense could not be properly considered | Other trial evidence could sustain conviction | Cannot conclude harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; must remand |
| Whether the denial of the instruction invalidates the conviction for possession of cocaine | Conviction improper without proper jury instruction on defense | Conviction stands if remaining evidence supports it | Conviction reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregory v. State, 937 So.2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (entitled to jury instruction on theory of defense with any supporting evidence)
- McKenzie v. State, 830 So.2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for jury instruction rulings)
- Miller v. State, 35 So.3d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (affirmative defense under § 893.101(2) does not require defendant to claim lack of knowledge of illegality)
- State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless error standard for trial court rulings)