Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 893.101 (2025)

Legislative findings and intent.

✓ 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

893.101 Legislative findings and intent.—

(1) The Legislature finds that the cases of Scott v. State, Slip Opinion No. SC94701 (Fla. 2002) and Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996), holding that the state must prove that the defendant knew of the illicit nature of a controlled substance found in his or her actual or constructive possession, were contrary to legislative intent.

(2) The Legislature finds that knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element of any offense under this chapter. Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is an affirmative defense to the offenses of this chapter.

(3) In those instances in which a defendant asserts the affirmative defense described in this section, the possession of a controlled substance, whether actual or constructive, shall give rise to a permissive presumption that the possessor knew of the illicit nature of the substance. It is the intent of the Legislature that, in those cases where such an affirmative defense is raised, the jury shall be instructed on the permissive presumption provided in this subsection.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2002-258.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 149 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012). · cites it 18× “In response to this Court’s decisions, the Legislature enacted a statute now codified in section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2011).”

Maestas v. State, 76 So. 3d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). · cites it 14× “We first note that this court has already held that section 893.101, Florida Statutes, is constitutional.”

Shelton v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2011). · cites it 18× “13 , as amended by Fla. Stat. § 893.101 . By this enactment, Florida became the only state in the nation expressly to eliminate mens rea -as an element of a drug offense.”

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases—report No. 2013-05, 153 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 2014). · cites it 30× “See § 893.101, Fla. Stat. (2014). This statute was created by chapter 2002-258, Laws of Florida, which provided: Section 1.”

Flagg v. State, 74 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). · cites it 6× “13(6)(a) is unconstitutional because the mens rea requirement in the statute was eliminated by section 893.101, which provides in pertinent part that: The Legislature finds that knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element of any offense under this…”

In Re Stand. Inst. in Crim. Cases (No. 2005-3), 969 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2007). · cites it 18× “The Committee proposes two substantive amendments to the drug abuse and trafficking instructions: instructions 25.”

Barrientos v. State, 1 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). · cites it 13× “The prosecutor explained to the trial court and defense counsel that he had deleted the fourth element pertaining to the defendant’s knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance in accordance with section 893.101. 5 However, the deletion of the word “knowingly” from the…”

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases—report No. 2015-03, 191 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 2016). · cites it 16× “§ 893.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat. Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is a defense to (crime charged).”

Dwight Dion Donawa v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 735 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2013). · cites it 6× “13 (l)(a)(2), as amended by Fla. Stat. § 893.101 , is an aggravated felony as a matter of law.”

In re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases-Instructions 25.9-25.13, 112 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 2013). · cites it 20× “In Adkins , a majority of the Court held that the guilty knowledge element, in light of the express language in section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2011), is limited to knowledge of the presence of the substance sold, purchased, manufactured, delivered, or brought into the state.”

Burnette v. State, 901 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). · cites it 11× “While we reject Burnette's *927 challenge to the constitutionality of section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2003), we agree that the jury instruction regarding the lack of knowledge affirmative defense constitutes reversible error.”

Wright v. State, 920 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). · cites it 8× “Wright is challenging, on substantive due process grounds, the facial constitutionality of section 893.101, Florida Statutes, amended to remove guilty knowledge as an element of possession of a controlled substance and adding lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a…”

Show all 149 citing cases →

— 893.101(1) — 6 cases

Taylor v. State, 13 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

Garcia v. State, 854 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Jones v. State, 857 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Basulto-Rodriguez v. State, 95 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Stevens v. State, 120 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

— 893.101(1)(c) — 1 case

Lavoski Jackson v. State of Florida (Fla. 4th DCA 2025).

— 893.101(2) — 28 cases

In Re Stand. Inst. in Crim. Cases (No. 2005-3), 969 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2007). “The Committee proposes two substantive amendments to the drug abuse and trafficking instructions: instructions 25.”

State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012). “In response to this Court’s decisions, the Legislature enacted a statute now codified in section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2011).”

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases—report No. 2015-03, 191 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 2016). “§ 893.101(2) and (3), Fla. Stat. Lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is a defense to (crime charged).”

In Re Stand. Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases—report No. 2013-05, 153 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 2014). “See § 893.101, Fla. Stat. (2014). This statute was created by chapter 2002-258, Laws of Florida, which provided: Section 1.”

Flagg v. State, 74 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). “13(6)(a) is unconstitutional because the mens rea requirement in the statute was eliminated by section 893.101, which provides in pertinent part that: The Legislature finds that knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element of any offense under this…”

— 893.101(3) — 6 cases

State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012). “In response to this Court’s decisions, the Legislature enacted a statute now codified in section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2011).”

Wright v. State, 920 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). “Wright is challenging, on substantive due process grounds, the facial constitutionality of section 893.101, Florida Statutes, amended to remove guilty knowledge as an element of possession of a controlled substance and adding lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of a…”

Barrientos v. State, 1 So. 3d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). “The prosecutor explained to the trial court and defense counsel that he had deleted the fourth element pertaining to the defendant’s knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance in accordance with section 893.101. 5 However, the deletion of the word “knowingly” from the…”

Quick v. State, 46 So. 3d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Burnette v. State, 901 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). “While we reject Burnette's *927 challenge to the constitutionality of section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2003), we agree that the jury instruction regarding the lack of knowledge affirmative defense constitutes reversible error.”

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.