Bruce v. State, 616 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Bruce v. State, 616 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
Quick Summary

Evidence of individually packaged drugs and expert testimony that the quantity indicates a dealer profile is sufficient to support a conviction for possession with intent to sell.

The defendant was convicted of possession of crack cocaine with intent to sell after officers observed him attempting to hide thirteen individually wrapped rocks. The defendant argues the evidence is insufficient to prove intent to sell rather than personal use. The court applies the rule that the quantity of drugs, their individual packaging, and expert testimony from a narcotics officer regarding the consistency of the possession with a dealer profile are sufficient to support a finding of intent to distribute. The court finds that the combination of thirteen separately wrapped rocks and the officer's expert opinion more than justifies the jury's conclusion that the defendant held the contraband for distribution, rejecting the claim that the evidence only supports simple possession.

26 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: S.P.R.Y. v. State, 946 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 504 Expert testimony regarding drug intent and packaging3 citing casesholding evidence supported jury's *540 conclusion that defendant intended to sell the cocaine where defendant had thirteen rocks, individually wrapped in clear plastic baggies, and the state presented the expert testimony of an experienced narcotics officer who stated that the quantity involved ind…1 citing court put it this way
  • S.P.R.Y. v. State, 946 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).published
    See Prescott v. State, 753 So.2d 568, 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that there was no abuse of discretion in allowing an expert witness to testify that the drugs were intended for sale rather than personal use); Scarlett v. State, 704 S…
  • Luis v. State, 851 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).published
    See Prescott v. State, 753 So.2d 568, 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that there was no abuse of discretion in allowing an expert witness to testify that the drugs were intended for sale rather than personal use); Scarlett v. State, 704 S…
  • Siprien v. State, 812 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).published
    (holding evidence supported jury's *540 conclusion that defendant intended to sell the cocaine where defendant had thirteen rocks, individually wrapped in clear plastic baggies, and the state presented the expert testimo…)
Other citing cases5 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Leroy BRUCE, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
92-1173.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Mar 16, 1993.
Published opinion
616 So. 2d 504
1993 WL 72129
Schwartz, C.J., and Jorgenson and Goderich.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 48%

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Pamela Beckham, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Scott Stoloff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Bruce was observed attempting to hide thirteen rocks of crack cocaine and was convicted of possession with intent to sell the contraband. Although he concedes his guilt of simple possession, his primary point is that the evidence is insufficient to justify the conclusion that he intended to sell the cocaine, rather than use it personally. We disagree.

The fact that the defendant had as many as thirteen rocks, individually wrapped in clear plastic baggies, coupled with expert evidence of an experienced narcotics officer that the quantity involved indicated that the crack was for sale, was more than sufficient to justify the jury's conclusion that Bruce indeed held the cocaine for distribution. K.M. v. State, 545 So.2d 464, 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ("The State presented evidence — the officers' expert testimony and the packaging of the drugs — from which the trial court could have concluded that K.M. intended to sell the cocaine and rejected K.M.'s contention that he merely possessed the drugs for his own use."); Stoudermire v. State, No. 05-90-01081-CR, 1991 WL 219522, at *6 (Tex. App. Oct. 29, 1991) ("Officer McCoy testified that Stoudermire did not fit the typical user profile. He stated that Stoudermire's possession of thirteen rocks[1] is more consistent with a drug dealer profile. His expert testimony can be used to support the conviction."), review refused (Tex. Crim. App. February 12, 1992); Spriggs v. United States, 618 A.2d 701, 704 (D.C.App. 1992) ("As the government's expert testified, the quantity, packaging, and value of the drugs possessed by appellant (thirteen separate packets — eight packets of heroin and five packets of cocaine — worth approximately $470.00) was more consistent with an intent to distribute than with personal use."); see Baten v. State, 579 So.2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), review denied, 589 So.2d 289 (Fla. 1991); K.J. v. State, 557 So.2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Compare McCullough v. State, 541 So.2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (small quantity alone insufficient to prove intent to sell); C.L.L. v. State, 566 So.2d 878 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (evidence insufficient in absence of expert police testimony that quantity and packaging of drugs were indicative of intent to sell).

Affirmed.

1 This case presents an a fortiori situation, because the thirteen rocks in Stoudermire were in one single bag, rather than, as here, separately wrapped as if for sale.