Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 893.10 (2025)
Burden of proof; photograph or video recording of evidence.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
893.10 Burden of proof; photograph or video recording of evidence.—
(1) It is not necessary for the state to negative any exemption or exception set forth in this chapter in any indictment, information, or other pleading or in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding under this chapter, and the burden of going forward with the evidence with respect to any exemption or exception is upon the person claiming its benefit.
(2) In the prosecution of an offense involving the manufacture of a controlled substance, a photograph or video recording of the manufacturing equipment used in committing the offense, including, but not limited to, grow lights, growing trays, and chemical fertilizers, may be introduced as competent evidence of the existence and use of the equipment and is admissible in the prosecution of the offense to the same extent as if the property were introduced as evidence.
(3) After a law enforcement agency documents the manufacturing equipment by photography or video recording, the manufacturing equipment may be destroyed on site and left in disrepair. The law enforcement agency destroying the equipment is immune from civil liability for the destruction of the equipment. The destruction of the equipment must be recorded by the supervising law enforcement officer in the manner described in s. 893.12(1)(a), and records must be maintained for 24 months.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1976–2019 · leading case: In re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-Instructions 25.9-25.13, 112 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 2013).
In re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-Instructions 25.9-25.13, 112 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 2013). “At the same time, the Legislature did not amend section 893.10, which applies to all of chapter 893.”
Purifoy v. State, 359 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1978). “Although agreeing with the state's expert that stems are not "mature stalks", it held that the definitional issue was "immaterial" because Section 893.10(1), Florida Statutes (1975), expressly relieves the state of negating "any exemption or exception" in the Florida…”
Gunn v. State, 336 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). “" Under § 893.10 it would not be necessary for the State to prove that the defendant did not have a valid prescription.”
State v. Holzbacher, 948 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). “4th DCA 1976) (noting by way of example that under section 893.10, if a defendant relied upon having a valid prescription as a defense to a charge of violating section 893.”
Purifoy v. State, 342 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). “Section 893.10(1), Florida Statutes (1975), expressly provides that it is not necessary for the State to negate any exception at trial, the burden of proof being upon the person claiming the exception.”
In Re: Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-Report 2018-12., 272 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2019). “Like all affirmative defenses and pursuant to § 893.10(1), Fla. Stat., the burden of going forward with evidence of the "controlled substance was lawfully obtained" defense is upon the defendant.”
In re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-Report No. 2011-05, 141 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2013). “Like all affirmative defenses and pursuant to § 893.10(1), Fla. Stai, the burden of going forward with evidence of the defense is upon the defendant.”
— 893.10(1) — 6 cases
Purifoy v. State, 359 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1978). “Although agreeing with the state's expert that stems are not "mature stalks", it held that the definitional issue was "immaterial" because Section 893.10(1), Florida Statutes (1975), expressly relieves the state of negating "any exemption or exception" in the Florida…”
In re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-Instructions 25.9-25.13, 112 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 2013). “At the same time, the Legislature did not amend section 893.10, which applies to all of chapter 893.”
Gunn v. State, 336 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). “" Under § 893.10 it would not be necessary for the State to prove that the defendant did not have a valid prescription.”
Purifoy v. State, 342 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). “Section 893.10(1), Florida Statutes (1975), expressly provides that it is not necessary for the State to negate any exception at trial, the burden of proof being upon the person claiming the exception.”
In Re: Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-Report 2018-12., 272 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2019). “Like all affirmative defenses and pursuant to § 893.10(1), Fla. Stat., the burden of going forward with evidence of the "controlled substance was lawfully obtained" defense is upon the defendant.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.