Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

545 So. 2d 464

Docket No. 88-2024.

KM v. State

K.M., a Juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 20, 1989.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1989-06-20

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The State presented evidence — the officers' expert testimony and the packaging of the drugs — from which the trial court could have concluded that K.M. intended to sell the cocaine and rejected K.M.'s contention that he merely possessed the drugs for his own use.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Scarlett v. State, 616 So. 2d 504 - Bruce v. State

Relies on 471 So. 2d 32 - Tillman v. State · United States v. Robinson · 541 So. 2d 720 - McCullough v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-06-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2007

9 state decisions

70198919902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Rosa C. Figarola, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sharon Azoulay, Certified Legal Intern, for appellee.

¶3Before BASKIN, COPE and LEVY, JJ.

¶4BASKIN, Judge.

¶5K.M., a juvenile, appeals the trial court's adjudication of delinquency for possession of cocaine with intent to sell. We affirm.

¶6First, we decline to consider K.M.'s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the narcotics officers to testify concerning the packaging of the cocaine. Because the specific legal ground argued on appeal was not presented to the trial court, K.M. has not properly preserved that point for review. Tillman v. State,471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985). Second, the adjudication of delinquency is supported by substantial competent, albeit circumstantial, evidence. Although the small quantity alone is not sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove intent to sell, McCullough v. State,541 So.2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), additional evidence supports the trial court's finding that K.M. intended to sell the cocaine. See e.g. United States v. Robinson,870 F.2d 612 (11th Cir.1989). Finally, the record supports a trial court determination that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis but that of K.M.'s guilt. See G.D. v. State,497 So.2d 1318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The state presented evidence — the officers' expert testimony and the packaging of the drugs — from which the trial court could have concluded that K.M. intended to sell the cocaine and rejected K.M.'s contention that he merely possessed the drugs for his own use. Robinson.

¶7Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency for possession with intent to sell cocaine.

/545/so2d/464 · .json · Public domain