Case Name: Mary Jane TERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2019-04-03
Citations: 267 So. 3d 566
Docket Number: No. 1D17-5386
Parties: Mary Jane TERRY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 267
Pages: 566–567

Head Matter:
Mary Jane TERRY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D17-5386
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
April 3, 2019
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Jessica J. Yeary, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate and Benjamin L. Hoffman, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Mary Jane Terry was convicted of manufacturing cannabis in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes. On appeal, she contends that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. We agree and reverse.
Officers responded to the home where Terry and at least two other people lived. The officers immediately noticed marijuana plants growing outside. One officer honked his horn, hoping a resident would come outside. Terry did, and the officers asked her if there was marijuana growing on the property. Terry acknowledged there was, showing officers the plants.
We review de novo an order denying a motion for judgment of acquittal. Pagan v. State , 830 So.2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002). We will reverse only if we conclude no "rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. Here, although there was ample evidence that Terry was aware of the marijuana plants, there was no evidence from which a jury could conclude that she was responsible for the "production, preparation, propagation, compounding, cultivating, growing, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance." See § 893.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. (defining "manufactured" for purposes of § 893.13 ). We therefore conclude that the trial court should have granted an acquittal.
REVERSED .
Roberts, Ray, and Winsor, JJ., concur.