From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...
Garcia v. Florida
Supreme Court of Florida
901 So. 2d 788 (2005)
Deputy Sheriff Joseph Irizarry observed Garcia (defendant) driving erratically. Irizarry stopped Garcia’s vehicle to conduct field sobriety tests. Irizarry then arrested Garcia for driving under the influence. Two additional deputies searched Garcia’s vehicle incident to his arrest. Under the front passenger seat, the officers discovered what appeared to be a softball covered in electrical tape. A laboratory determined that the item contained a mix of methamphetamine and a cutting agent. Garcia claimed that he was unaware the item had been in the vehicle and that he did not know what it contained. In support of this contention, Garcia explained that other people had access to his vehicle and that the vehicle had recently been stolen and returned. Garcia was charged with trafficking in methamphetamine and ultimately convicted of the lesser-included offense of possession of methamphetamine. The trial court instructed the jury that knowledge that the substance was methamphetamine was a required element of the drug-trafficking offense. With regard to the lesser-included offense of drug possession, the court’s jury instruction did not specifically state that knowledge of the nature of the illicit substance was required but did note that the definition of possession provided in the trafficking charge continued to apply. Garcia appealed to the district court, arguing that, among other things, the trial court erred in providing a jury instruction on possession that did not expressly require knowledge of the nature of the illicit substance. Although the district court agreed with Garcia’s argument, it found that Garcia had not properly preserved the error and that the error was not a fundamental one that could be addressed without proper preservation. [Editor’s note: The district court certified its opinion to the Florida Supreme Court, based on a conflict with Goodman v. State, 839 So.2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).]
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Quince, J.)
Dissent (Wells, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 517,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 517,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.