Goldsby v. State

Full title: Christopher A. Goldsby, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee.

Court: Florida Court of Appeals, First District

Date published: Jun 5, 2024

No. 1D2022-3133 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jun. 5, 2024)

Opinion

1D2022-3133

06-05-2024

Christopher A. Goldsby, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee.

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Richard M. Bracey III, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert Charles Charlie Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

LONG, J.

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Christopher N. Patterson, Judge.

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Richard M. Bracey III, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Robert Charles "Charlie" Lee, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

LONG, J.

Appellant, Christopher Goldsby, was convicted of trafficking in methamphetamine and heroin. Goldsby challenges the trial court's decision to not instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance. The State responds, in part, that no evidence supported the instruction. We agree.

Knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element of trafficking in methamphetamine or heroin. § 893.101(2), Fla. Stat. Lack of such knowledge is, instead, an affirmative defense. A defendant is entitled to this affirmative defense instruction when he contends his "admittedly illegal conduct should not be punished." State v. Adkins, 96 So.3d 412, 423 (Fla. 2012). The jury instruction must be given "if any evidence supports the theory, irrespective of how weak the evidence is." Barnes v. State, 108 So.3d 700, 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (citing Quick v. State, 46 So.3d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).

Goldsby did not testify, and no other evidence supports the affirmative defense that he did not know the nature of the substance. Instead, the defense theory stressed that Goldsby did not knowingly possess the substances. That is, he challenged possession, not knowledge of the nature of the substance. Goldsby, therefore, was not entitled to a jury instruction on the lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of controlled substances.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE and NORDBY, JJ, concur