Borras v. State
| Decision Date | 03 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 38426,38426 |
| Citation | 229 So.2d 244 |
| Parties | Anthony B. BORRAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John D. Buchanan, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, and Joseph S. Oteri, of Crane, Inker & Oteri, Boston, Mass., for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This cause is before us on appeal from the Circuit Court of Leon County, wherein appellant was tried and convicted of possession of narcotics and sentenced to eight (8) months at hard labor. The trial court, in denying appellant's motion to dismiss the information, upheld the validity of Chapter 398, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the Narcotic Drug Act giving this Court jurisdiction under Section 4 of Article V, Florida Constitution, F.S.A.
Appellant raises the following points on appeal:
'Point I--The scope of appellant's attack on the statute, Chapter 398, F.S., is broader than a mere attack on the sections of the statute under which this appellant is particularly charged.
'Point II--This court must make a threshold factual finding with respect to marijuana independent of the fact-findings of the trial judge.
'Point III--The Narcotic Drugs Laws of Florida is irrational and unreasonable, and as such violates provisions of the Florida Constitution and of the United States Constitution, in that the law, as applied to marijuana, creates more problems than it may possibly solve.
'Point IV--The Narcotic Drugs Law, as applied to marijuana, goes beyond the police power of the state in that it is not and cannot be aimed at achieving any valid legislative end, namely protection of the health, safety, welfare and morals, and any possible dangers could be eliminated through less restrictive legislation which would not interfere with a whole range of private activity and personal rights.
'Point V--The Narcotic Drugs Law is unconstitutional in that it violates the equal protection guaranties of the Constitutions of Florida and of the United States.
Point VI--The penalties provided for offenses under the Narcotic Drugs Law, as applied to marijuana, constitute cruel and excessive punishment, in violation of defendant's rights under the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution.
'Point VII--The state may not constitutionally interfere with the possession and/or use of marijuana by an individual in the privacy of his own home.
'Point VIII--The Court erred in not granting appellant's motion to suppress the evidence when the affidavit used for the search warrant failed to show probable cause.'
The first six of the points set out above were considered and found without merit in Raines v. State. 1 In Raines, we affirmed a conviction for sale of marijuana and upheld the Narcotic Drug Act. A similar result was reached in a recent Massachusetts case. 2 The instant case involves a conviction for possession of narcotics and two additional questions for determination. Points VII and VIII, supra.
Appellant contends that the State may not interfere with the possession and use of marijuana by an individual in the privacy of his own home. The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Stanley v. Georgia 3 is cited in support of this contention. In Stanley a Georgia statute prohibiting the possession of obscene material was held unconstitutional insofar as it punished mere private possession of obscene matter. The United States Supreme Court stated, however: 4
Reprehensible as the possession of obscene material may be, the possession and use of marijuana poses a much greater potential threat to society.
Appellant states that the primary purpose of smoking marijuana is the 'psychological reaction' it produces in the user and that by smoking marijuana he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nat. Org. for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Bell
...21 L.Ed.2d 383 (1968); State v. Anonymous, 32 Conn.Sup. 324, 355 A.2d 729 (1976); Laird v. State, 342 So.2d 962 (Fla.1977); Borras v. State, 229 So.2d 244 (Fla.1969), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 808, 91 S.Ct. 70, 27 L.Ed.2d 37 (1970); Blincoe v. State, 231 Ga. 886, 204 S.E.2d 597 (1974); State v......
-
United States v. Harvey
...v. State, 238 So.2d 313, 314 (3d DCA 1970); Williams v. State, 293 So.2d 772 (3d DCA), cert. denied, 301 So.2d 778 (1974); Borras v. State, 229 So.2d 244 (Fla.1969), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 808, 91 S.Ct. 70, 27 L.Ed.2d 37 (1970). Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court in Hamilton v. State, 366 ......
-
State v. Clay
...'within the last few days' were sufficient to show present existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant. In Borras v. State, 229 So.2d 244 (Fla.1969), it was held that failure to recite a date or dates when marijuana was sold did not render it invalid where the wording used in ......
-
Warren v. State
...Sanders v. State, 482 S.W.2d 648 (Tex.Cr.App.); State ex rel. Scott v. Conaty, 187 S.E.2d 119 (W.Va.Sp.Ct. of App.); Borras v. State, 229 So.2d 244 (Fla.1969); Raines v. State, 225 So.2d 330 (Fla.1969); State v. Kantner, 493 P.2d 306 Another important factor for consideration is the plainly......