Hamilton v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases

    288 So. 3d 540 (Fla. 2020)

    A special instruction is necessary when the defense is a mere involuntary or superficial possession.See cases such asHamilton v. State, 732 So.2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) andSanders v. State, 563 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Starting in 2014, the Legislature passed laws pertaining to "medical cannabis" or "low-THC cannabis," which is excluded from the definition of "cannabis" in § 893.02(3), Fla. Stat.; is defined in § 381.

  2. In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report 2017-03

    238 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 2018)   Cited 10 times

    A special instruction is necessary when the defense is a mere involuntary or superficial possession.See cases such asHamilton v. State, 732 So.2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) andSanders v. State, 563 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Starting in 2014, the Legislature passed laws pertaining to "medical cannabis" or "low-THC cannabis," which is excluded from the definition of "cannabis" in § 893.02(3), Fla. Stat.; is defined in § 381.

  3. In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report 2016-09

    216 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 2017)

    A special instruction is necessary when the defense is a mere involuntary or superficial possession. See cases such asHamilton v. State, 732 So.2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) andSanders v. State, 563 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). InStarting in 2014, the legislature passed laws pertaining tomedical marijuana, also known as "medical cannabis" or "low-THC cannabis," which is excluded from the definition of "cannabis" in § 893.02(3), Fla. Stat.; is defined in § 381.

  4. In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—report No. 2015-03

    191 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    03(1)(c)46 -50, 114 -142, 151 -159, or 166 -1 73, if the felony level of these substances is charged 893.13(6)(b) 25.7 Attempt 777.04(1) 5.1 Comment s Fla. Stat. § 893.21 , Fla. Stat . A person acting in good faith who seeks medical assistance for an individual experiencing a drug-related overdose may not be prosecuted for Possession of a Controlled Substance if the evidence of the possession was obtained as a result of the person's seeking medical assistance. A special instruction is necessary when the defense is a mere involuntary or superficial possession. See cases such as 308 Hamilton v. State, 732 So.2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) and Sanders v. State, 563 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1 st st DCA 1990).

  5. In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—report No. 2013-05

    153 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    Fla. Stat. § 893.21 A person acting in good faith who seeks medical assistance for an individual experiencing a drug-related overdose may not be prosecuted for Possession of a Controlled Substance if the evidence of the possession was obtained as a result of the person's seeking medical assistance. A special instruction is necessary when the defense is a mere involuntary or superficial possession. See cases such as Hamilton v. State, 732 So.2d 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) and Sanders v. State, 563 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). This instruction was adopted in 1981 and amended in 1989 1205, 1997 84, and2007 245 , and 2014 .See also SC03–629 [869 So.2d 1205 (Fla.2004) ].25.8 DRUG ABUSE—OBTAINING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE BY FRAUD, ETC. § 893.13(7)(a) 9, Fla. Stat. Certain drugs and chemical substances are by law known as “controlled substances. ”

  6. Ortega v. State

    755 So. 2d 813 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 1 times

    In this Anders proceeding, we agree that no non-frivolous position is advanceable on behalf of the defendant and therefore affirm his convictions for conspiracy, see Herrera v. State, 532 So.2d 54, 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), quoting McCain v. State, 390 So.2d 779, 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 399 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 1981) (recognizing that "direct proof of an agreement is not necessary to establish a conspiracy; the jury is free to infer from all the circumstances surrounding and accompanying the act that the common purpose to commit the crime existed"), and trafficking in cocaine by possession of more than 400 grams. See § 893.02(16), Fla. Stat. (1997) (providing "`[p]ossession' includes temporary possession for the purpose of verification or testing, irrespective of dominion or control"); Hamilton v. State, 732 So.2d 493, 494-95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (recognizing that this statute has created a "statutory exception" to Campbell v. State, 577 So.2d 932 (Fla. 1991)); State v. Nellums, 614 So.2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (recognizing that the 1992 amendment to section 893.02(16), Florida Statutes, changed the law). We note the excellence of the Anders brief prepared by Assistant Public Defender, Shaundra L. Kellam. Her representation fully complied with her duties both to her client and to the justice system she serves.