Case Name: John Doyle WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1977-11-17
Citations: 351 So. 2d 1127
Docket Number: No. DD-167
Parties: John Doyle WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SMITH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 351
Pages: 1127–1131

Head Matter:
John Doyle WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. DD-167.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nov. 17, 1977.
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Opinion:
BOYER, Judge.
After trial by jury, Wright was found guilty of the offense of possession of more than five grams of cannabis contrary to Section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes, and sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for the term of three years. His sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in not granting either his motion for directed verdict of acquittal or his motion for new trial to the extent that said motion was directed toward the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict. More specifically, Wright argues that the state failed to prove all of the essential elements of the felony offense he was charged with.
Wright was charged by amended information with the "actual or constructive possession of a controlled substance, named or described in Section 893.03(l)(c), Florida Statutes, to-wit: more than five grams of Cannabis, contrary to Section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes." Since the state did not allege nor prove a prior conviction under Section 893.13(l)(f), it is only the weight of the cannabis that determines whether the offense is a felony or a misdemeanor.
At trial, Wright stipulated to the expertise of the state's forensic chemist and toxicologist, Nalley, who testified on direct examination that the "baggie" taken from Wright tested out as ten grams of cannabis sative (or sativa). However, Nalley's testimony upon cross-examination and re-direct revealed that her test method consisted of microscopic and chemical analysis of a randomly selected portion of the alleged cannabis and a weighing of the contents of the baggie. Nalley explained that the contents of the baggie weighed ten grams and that a randomly selected portion of the contents (of an undetermined weight) tested positively as cannabis sative. When asked if she had tested the entire contents to determine if it contained any other substance than cannabis, Nalley stated that she had not.
At the close of the state's case, Wright made a motion for directed verdict on the grounds that the state failed to prove each and every material allegation of the information, followed by a request that the trial court consider a reduction from a felony to a misdemeanor since, Wright contended, a felony amount of cannabis had not been proved. Both were denied.
Criminal convictions cannot be based upon probabilities nor suspicion. It is also a basic rule of statutory construction that statutes that are penal in character must be strictly construed and the accused must be plainly and unmistakably within the criminal statute to justify a conviction. In the instant case, proof that the cannabis in the bag weighed in excess of five grams was an essential element of the felony possession offense charged. However, weight of the evidence is generally to be determined by the jury. As recited above, Wright was charged with possession of more than five grams of cannabis. Nalley, unequivocally testified that the contents of the baggie weighed ten grams and that it was cannabis. On cross-examination she candidly stated that she did not test every molecule separately but that her test of the contents of the baggie was "picked at random". Her testimony may have been weakened by cross-examination but it was not destroyed. Her statement that the baggie contained ten grams of cannabis was not contradicted. The law does not require each molecule, grain, leaf or stalk to be tested separately. Neither does the law prohibit an expert from arriving at a logical conclusion based upon a random sampling.
At the conclusion of the trial the record contained the unequivocal testimony of witness Nalley that the baggie contained ten grams of cannabis. The record also revealed the testimony on cross-examination that Nalley's conclusion was based upon positive identification of a random sample. The issue was made for resolution by the jury and the jury has spoken. The learned trial judge did not therefore err in denying a motion for directed verdict, in refusing to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor nor in failing to grant a new trial. It is axiomatic that an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of a jury on a question of fact. (See Lyles v. State, 312 So.2d 495 (Fla.1st DCA 1975) and cases therein cited.)
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, J., concurs.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., dissents.
. Sec. 893.13(l)(f), Fla.Stat., provides that if the first offense is the possession or delivery without consideration of not more than five grams of cannabis, that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.
. Pope v. State, 268 So.2d 173 (Fla.2nd DCA 1972). Compare this court's recent opinion in Purifoy v. State, 342 So.2d 560 (Fla.1st DCA 1977), in which it was held that Purifoy failed to meet the burden of proof placed upon him pursuant to Sec. 893.10(1), Fla.Stat., to show that the 7.05 grams of cannabis he was charged with possessing did not weigh more than five grams, after excluding those portions of the plant cannabis sativa specifically excluded from the criminal definition of "cannabis" contained in Sec. 893.02(2), Fla.Stat.
. State ex rel. Cooper v. Coleman, 189 So. 691 (FIa.1939); Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 4 So.2d 700 (1941); Newman v. State, 174 So.2d 479 (Fla.2nd DCA 1965).
. Gunn v. State, 336 So.2d 687 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); Samet v. State, 284 So.2d 450 (Fla.3rd DCA 1973); and Pope v. State, 268 So.2d 173 (Fla.2nd DCA 1972), cert disch. 283 So.2d 99 (Fla.1973).