Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

796 So. 2d 1260

Docket No. 4D00-3174.

Hampton v. State

James HAMPTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 17, 2001.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2001-10-17

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 2002

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The State has the burden of proof in any prosecution to demonstrate each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.... Since the jury is entitled to be instructed on the elements of the offense, it cannot be harmless error to fail to do so especially when the omission is brought to the attention of the trial court by the defendant. ... Moreover, the requirement that an instruction [that the defendant must have knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance] must be given does not depend on the defense espoused. Because knowledge of the illicit nature is an element of the crime and the jury must be instructed on each element of the crime, an instruction must be given even when the defendant simply requires the State to prove its case and offers nothing by way of an affirmative defense.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Gary v. State

Relies on 751 So. 2d 537 - Goodwin v. State · 684 So. 2d 736 - Chicone v. State · Pacific Florida Holdings, Inc. v. Palm Beach County

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-10-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1261 Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and David J. McPherrin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Maria J. Patullo, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3KLEIN, J.

¶4Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a church. We reverse because the trial court did not instruct the jury that appellant had to have had knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance, required by Chicone v. State,684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996).

¶5Appellant was observed by an officer holding a small bag and saying to another person "hey man, what do you need?" The officer then observed appellant show the other person the bag. As the officer walked toward appellant and identified himself, appellant dropped the bag and attempted to escape on his bicycle, but the officer was able to restrain him. Inside the bag which appellant dropped were four small bags each containing a single rock of crack cocaine.

¶6In Chicone the Florida Supreme Court held that if a defendant requests an instruction that an element of the crime of possession of drugs is knowledge that the substance is illicit, such an instruction must be given. Appellant requested such an instruction in this case, but the court denied the request. We disagree with the state's assertion that the failure to give the instruction can be harmless.[1]

¶7We accordingly reverse for a new trial. We have considered the other issues raised by appellant and find them to be without merit.

¶8WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶9[1] Although we found the failure to give a Chicone instruction harmless in Ryals v. State,716 So.2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), we did so under the erroneous assumption that the burden was on the appellant to demonstrate that the error was prejudicial under section 924.051(7), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). After Ryals the Florida Supreme Court held that the burden of demonstrating that error was not harmless was on the state. Goodwin v. State,751 So.2d 537 (Fla.1999).

/796/so2d/1260 · .json · Public domain