Court Opinion

ID: 9909471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 16:03:55.896211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:25.848351
License: Public Domain

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                        No. 1D2022-3073
                 _____________________________

TAUREAN MARQUIS
WASHINGTON,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.
Coleman Lee Robinson, Judge.

                        December 13, 2023

BILBREY, J.

     Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence for
possession of methamphetamine, claiming error by the trial court
in refusing to admit certain evidence. We affirm.

    Appellant claims that the trial court erred in refusing to admit
evidence that the passenger in the vehicle driven by Appellant also
possessed controlled substances. Appellant’s contention was that
the methamphetamine found in his pocket by law enforcement
during a search incident to lawful arrest belonged to the passenger.
Appellant sought to argue to the jury that when Appellant’s vehicle
was stopped, he held the methamphetamine for his passenger to
prevent her from consuming the drug and potentially overdosing.
The trial court ruled that the evidence of possession by the
passenger was irrelevant and refused to admit it. We agree.

     “Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a
material fact.” § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (2022). “All relevant evidence is
admissible, except as provided by law.” § 90.402, Fla. Stat. “We
review evidentiary rulings by a trial court for abuse of discretion.”
Calloway v. State, 210 So. 3d 1160, 1182 (Fla. 2017) (citations
omitted).

     Other district courts have held that it is a defense to the crime
of possession of a controlled substance “where a person takes
temporary control of contraband in order to make a legal
disposition of it by throwing it away, destroying it, or giving it to
police.” Stanton v. State, 746 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999);
see also Ramsubhag v. State, 937 So. 2d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA
2006) (citing Stanton). Our court has not opined on the availability
of this potential defense, * and we need not do so here because the
record does not provide evidentiary support for such a defense.

     After Appellant’s vehicle was stopped for a potential license
plate violation, a warrant check revealed that Appellant had an
active arrest warrant. The arresting officer then searched
Appellant and located a plastic baggy with a substance that later
tested positive as methamphetamine. “’Legal disposal’ means to

    *   Florida Standard Jury Instruction 3.6(m) is titled
“Affirmative Defense:       Temporary Possession of Controlled
Substance for Legal Disposal.” This instruction was issued by the
Florida Supreme Court in In re Standard Jury Instructions in
Criminal Cases—Report No. 2011-05, 141 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2013).
But this does not mean that the instruction is necessarily legally
correct. Id. at 134; see also In re Amendments to Florida Rules of
Judicial Administration, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and
Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure—Standard Jury Instructions,
45 Fla. L. Weekly S121, 2020 WL 1593030 (Fla. Mar. 5, 2020) (“[T]o
avoid any misconception that this Court has ‘adopted,’ ‘approved,’
or otherwise ruled on the legal correctness of the standard jury
instructions prepared by the committees, the Court has
determined that it should no longer be involved in the development
and authorization for use of Florida’s standard jury instructions.”).

                                  2
destroy or throw away the controlled substance or to turn in the
controlled substance to a law enforcement officer.” Fla. Std. Jury
Instr. (Crim.) 3.6(m). At no time before the methamphetamine was
located did Appellant seek to legally dispose of it.

     “A defendant has a fundamental right to present witnesses
and offer evidence relevant to his defense.” Martin v. State, 110
So. 3d 936, 938 (Fla. 2013). “However, the admissibility of this
evidence must be gauged by the same principle of relevancy as any
other evidence offered by the defendant.” Rivera v. State, 561
So. 2d 536, 539 (Fla. 1990). That Appellant’s passenger may have
possessed controlled substances would not prove Appellant’s
possession was merely temporary and for lawful disposition when
Appellant did nothing to legally dispose of the methamphetamine.
The evidence Appellant sought to admit was irrelevant, and the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit it.

    AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and ROWE, J., concur.

                 _____________________________

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

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Pamela D. Presnell,
Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Damaris E. Reynolds,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

                                3