Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Scott v. Stateyellow2 sentences2002Second, as I stated in my dissenting opinion in Scott v. State, 808 So.2d at 172 I again express concern regarding the applicability of the Chicone instruction and the Medlin presumption to cases of actual or constructive possession. 2002See Scott v. State, 808 So.2d 166 (Fla.2002)(holding that failure to give a properly requested Chicone instruction cannot be harmless error). | 3 | 7 |
Standard Jury Instructions in Crim. Casesgreen2 sentences2002See Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (97-1), 697 So.2d 84, 87 (Fla.1997) (adopting Chicone instruction, effective July 10, 1997). 2002See Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (97-1), 697 So.2d 84, 87 (Fla.1997) (adopting Chicone instruction, effective July 10, 1997). | 3 | 3 |
Grant v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Nedd v. State, 965 So.2d 1287, 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Grant v. State, 815 So.2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). 2007See id. at 580 ; see also Grant v. State, 815 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversing delivery conviction for failure to give requested Chicone instruction). | 2 | 2 |
Nedd v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See Nedd v. State, 965 So.2d 1287, 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Grant v. State, 815 So.2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). 2012See Nedd v. State, 965 So.2d 1287, 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Grant v. State, 815 So.2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Abbott v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See id. at 580 ; see also Grant v. State, 815 So.2d 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversing delivery conviction for failure to give requested Chicone instruction). | 1 | 1 |
Bolender v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Bolender v. State, 658 So.2d 82, 85 (Fla.1995). 2006See Bolender v. State, 658 So.2d 82, 85 (Fla.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Rhinehart v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Davis v. State, 839 So.2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also Rhinehart v. State, 840 So.2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (failure to give Chicone instruction was not fundamental error where appellant did not present any evidence or argue that he did not know the illicit nature of the substance he delivered). 2003Davis v. State, 839 So.2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also Rhinehart v. State, 840 So.2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (failure to give Chicone instruction was not fundamental error where appellant did not present any evidence or argue that he did not know the illicit nature of the substance he delivered). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Weekly D1557 , D1557, ___ So.2d ___, ___, 2002 WL 1430482 (Fla. 4th DCA July 3, 2002) ("Further, this court in Gary, citing Scott, held that the failure to instruct the jury on a requested Chicone instruction cannot be considered harmless error."). | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Scott v. State, 722 So.2d 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); see also Leaks v. State, 748 So.2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). 2002See Scott v. State, 722 So.2d 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); see also Leaks v. State, 748 So.2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Forget v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Cf. Forget v. State, 782 So.2d 410, 412-13 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (stating that trial counsel’s failure to request a jury instruction requiring the state to establish the defendant’s knowledge of the presence of cocaine residue in a pipe found on his person constituted ineffective assistance of counsel). | 1 | 1 |
Leaks v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Scott v. State, 722 So.2d 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); see also Leaks v. State, 748 So.2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). 2002See Scott v. State, 722 So.2d 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); see also Leaks v. State, 748 So.2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. State
green
2 sentences2003Pursuant to this court's recent decision in Lee v. State, 835 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), we find that this was not fundamental error. 2003Pursuant to this court's recent decision in Lee v. State, 835 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), we find that this was not fundamental error. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Davis v. State
green
2 sentences2003Davis v. State, 839 So.2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also Rhinehart v. State, 840 So.2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (failure to give Chicone instruction was not fundamental error where appellant did not present any evidence or argue that he did not know the illicit nature of the substance he delivered). 2003Davis v. State, 839 So.2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also Rhinehart v. State, 840 So.2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (failure to give Chicone instruction was not fundamental error where appellant did not present any evidence or argue that he did not know the illicit nature of the substance he delivered). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Gaines v. State
green
1 sentence2002The Fifth District rejected this argument, concluding that "the supreme court has not yet decided whether a special instruction concerning [a] defendant's knowledge is required if he challenges only his possession of the substance." Scott, 722 So.2d at 257 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
McMillon v. State
green
2 sentences2002"Giving both instructions preserves the State's obligation to prove every element of its case without diminishing the importance of the presumption that logically flows from a defendant's actual possession of a controlled substance." McMillon, 813 So.2d at 58 . 2002"Giving both instructions preserves the State's obligation to prove every element of its case without diminishing the importance of the presumption that logically flows from a defendant's actual possession of a controlled substance." McMillon, 813 So.2d at 58 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ryals v. State
green
2 sentences2001NOTES [1] Although we found the failure to give a Chicone instruction harmless in Ryals v. State, 716 So.2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), we did so under the erroneous assumption that the burden was on the appellant to demonstrate that the error was prejudicial under section 924.051(7), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). 2001NOTES [1] Although we found the failure to give a Chicone instruction harmless in Ryals v. State, 716 So.2d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), we did so under the erroneous assumption that the burden was on the appellant to demonstrate that the error was prejudicial under section 924.051(7), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Williamson v. State
green
1 sentence2000This court reached a similar conclusion in Williamson v. State, 764 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, 744 So.2d 457 (Fla.1999), in which we held that failure to give a requested Chicone instruction could not be considered harmless when the defendant claimed that he did not know what substance was in the bottle of pills he stole from a burglarized home. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.