State v. Adkins
96 So. 3d 412
Fla.2012Background
- Florida enacted chapter 893, the Florida Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, with 893.13 offenses and 893.101 affirmative defense for lack of knowledge of illicit nature.
- Statute eliminates knowledge of illicit nature as an element and provides that lack of such knowledge is an affirmative defense.
- Circuit court dismissed charges in 46 cases as facially unconstitutional; state appeals arguing constitutional validity.
- Florida Supreme Court must determine whether due process is violated by removing the knowledge element while permitting an affirmative defense.
- Court analyzes historical precedent (Chicone, Scott) and federal/state authorities on mens rea, public welfare offenses, and potential for overbreadth or unfair punishment.
- Majority concludes the statutes are constitutional; dissent would find possible as-applied due process issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 893.13/893.101 violate due process by removing knowledge as an element | State (Chicone lineage) maintains broad legislative power to define crimes without mens rea | Defendant (defense) argues removal risks punishing innocent possession and violates due process | No; statute constitutional; affirmative defense saves application |
| Whether the absence of knowledge as an element shifting burden of proof is permissible | State argues no improper burden shift because defense is separate issue | Defendant argues risk of presumption and burden on innocent defendants | Yes; not a shifting of the State’s burden; defense preserves innocence presumption when raised |
| Whether Lambert/Giorgetti-like concerns apply to these controlled-substance offenses | State relies on regulatory/offense design and public welfare rationale | Defense warns of possible innocent conduct criminalization | Not controlling; offenses rationally related to public health and include explicit affirmative defense |
| Whether as-applied challenges could succeed despite facial validity | Majority suggests no facial invalidity, but there could be as-applied concerns | Dissent warns about substantial penalties and innocent possession; possible as-applied challenge | Potentially; majority leaves open as-applied challenges in narrow circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Balint v. United States, 258 U.S. 250 (U.S. (1922)) (knowledge not element in narcotics act; regulatory rationale)
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (U.S. (1994)) (statutory element definitions entrusted to legislature; mens rea not always required)
- Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (U.S. (1957)) (due process limits on criminalizing passive conduct absent notice)
- Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla. (1996)) (guilty knowledge of illicit nature required in possession offenses (original standard))
- Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (U.S. (1977)) (affirmative defense does not negate guilt facts; preserves presumption of innocence)
- Cohen v. State, 568 So.2d 49 (Fla. (1990)) (illusory affirmative defense; not allowed when it conflicts with elements of crime)
- Giorgetti v. State, 868 So.2d 512 (Fla. (2004)) (limits on dispensing with mens rea; due process relevant to sex-offender statutes)
- Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (U.S. (1959)) (First Amendment concerns when criminalizing possession of protected materials; requires mens rea in some contexts)
- United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (U.S. (1971)) (public-safety offenses; caution against overbroad strict liability)
- United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 402 U.S. 558 (U.S. (1971)) (application of strict liability in regulatory contexts; due process considerations)