State v. Kahler, 37164
Decision Date | 25 February 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 37164,37164 |
Citation | 232 So.2d 166 |
Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John Henry KAHLER, Appellee. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard E. Gerstein, State's Atty., and Charles D. Edelstein, Asst. State's Atty., for appellant.
Charles M. Demos, Miami, for appellee.
This cause is before us on appeal from the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County. That Court made an oral announcement quashing an information because grounded on an unconstitutional statute. The State appealed and this Court, in an opinion filed May 28, 1969, 1 relinquished control of the cause to the trial court temporarily for the purpose of enabling the Judge to enter an order stating specifically the basis on which he intended to rule. On remand, the trial court entered an order holding subsection (2) of Florida Statutes § 500.151, F.S.A. 2 unconstitutional, stating:
'Subsection 2 contains a statutory presumption to the effect that the possession of a drug; e.g., Librium, when it is not properly labeled to indicate that the possession is by a valid prescription of a practitioner licensed by law to administer said drug shall be prima facie evidence that such possession is unlawful.
'Therefore, possession of a drug, such as Librium, without being properly labeled, would be sufficient evidence to authorize conviction, inasmuch as the presumption enables a jury to infer that such possession is unlawful. This, of course, compels the defendant to present evidence to overcome the presumption, notwithstanding defendant may have obtained the drug by lawful means.
'* * *
'Adverting to the test that there be a rational connection between the facts proved and the fact presumed, it is apparent that the fact of possession of a drug, such as Librium, without possessing simultaneously therewith proof of a 'proper label' does not raise an inference that such possession is unlawful.
Since the trial court passed directly on the validity of a state statute, this Court has jurisdiction under § 4 of Article V of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A.
In Falcon v. State, 3 this Court considered and rejected a similar attack on a portion of the Narcotic Drug Act, holding:
4
A number of Florida decisions hold that criminal statutes may provide exceptions to be negatived by the defendant. 5 The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Burge v. United States 6 upheld a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 174 which prohibits the importation of certain drugs as well as the receipt, concealment or transportation of the illegally imported drug. Under that Act if the defendant is shown to have or have had the possession of the narcotic drug, the possession is deemed sufficient evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant explains the possession to the satisfaction of the jury. 7
The law requires that the State prove each element of a criminal offense charged. The State is not required, however, to anticipate defensive matters or exceptions and negative them. The obvious result of such a requirement would render prosecution under our criminal laws unfeasible, if not impossible.
Under Florida Statutes § 500.151(2), F.S.A., possession of any drug described in subsection (1) without a label indicating a valid prescription is 'prima facie evidence that such possession is unlawful.' Prima facie evidence is evidence sufficient to establish a fact unless and until rebutted. 8 On proof by the State that the defendant had possession of a drug specified in subsection (1), without a label indicating a valid prescription, the Burden of going forward with the evidence then shifts to defendant to show that his possession was under a valid prescription or that he was otherwise exempted from operation of the Act.
The Legislature in its wisdom has seen fit to relieve the State of the impossible burden of affirmatively proving a negative; to-wit: the nonexistence of a prescription.
Although the possession of drugs by any person contrary to the above provision of the Statute is prima facie evidence of illegality, this evidence may be overcome by the showing of the person in possession of said drugs that they were lawfully prescribed by a licensed practitioner. No other proof is needed.
Criminal acts declaring one fact prima facie evidence or presumption of another are frequent. Their purpose is not to relieve the State of the burden of proof, but to allow the establishment of a prima facie case. 9 Constitutional guarantees are not violated as long as there...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Std. Jury Instructions in Civil Cases -- Report No. 09-01
...that term not be used as not helpful to a jury. Rather, the committee has used the definition of prima facie. See, e.g., State v. Kahler, 232 So.2d 166, 168 (Fla.1970) (“prima facie” means “evidence sufficient to establish a fact unless and until rebutted”). 2. Before this instruction is gi......
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Case—-Report Number
...that term not be used as not helpful to a jury. Rather, the committee has used the definition of prima facie. See, e.g., State v. Kahler, 232 So.2d 166, 168 (Fla.1970) (“prima facie” means “evidence sufficient to establish a fact unless and until rebutted”). 2. Before this instruction is gi......
-
State v. Rolle
...Accord Morgan v. State, 392 So.2d 1315, 1316 (Fla.1981); State ex rel. Boyd v. Green, 355 So.2d 789, 794 (Fla.1978); State v. Kahler, 232 So.2d 166, 168 (Fla.1970); Cordell v. State, 157 Fla. 295, 296, 25 So.2d 885, 886 (1946). To satisfy its burden of proof, the state must produce evidence......
-
Com. v. Stoffan
...52, 53, pages 88--90; 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 571, page 315; Stanley v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 37, 245 N.E.2d 149, 151; State v. Kahler (Fla.1970), 232 So.2d 166, 168; State v. Belanger (1961), 148 Conn. 57, 167 A.2d 245, 248; State v. Rowe (Maine 1968), 238 A.2d 217, 221; State v. Seng, ......