Garcia v. Florida

Facts

Joseph Irizarry, Deputy Sheriff, observed Garcia, Defendant, driving erratically. Deputy Sheriff approached Defendant’s car and conducted a sobriety test on the field. Thereafter, Deputy Sheriff arrested Defendant for driving while under the influence. Further, two additional deputies arrived on the scene and searched Defendant’s car incident to his arrest. Underneath the front passenger seat, the deputies found what they thought was a softball with electrical tape around it. The laboratory report indicated that the item the found was a mix of methamphetamine and a cutting agent. Defendant asserted that he did not know that the item was in his car or what the item contained. Also, Defendant claims that other people have access to his car and that the car was recently stolen and returned to him. Thereafter, Defendant was charged with trafficking in methamphetamine, but convicted of, the lesser-included offense, possession of methamphetamine. The trial court instructed the jury that the Defendant must be found to have knowledge that the substance was actually methamphetamine was a required for the offense. For the lesser -included offense, the trial court did not specifically instruct the jury that Defendant must be found to have knowledge of the nature of the illegal substance, but the trial court did state that the definition of possession, as provided in the trafficking charge, still to applied. Defendant appealed his conviction on the grounds that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on possession, because it did not expressly require knowledge of the illegal substance. The appellate court agreed with Defendant, nevertheless, the court noted Defendant did not preserved the issue on appeal. Further, since the error was not a fundamental one, it could not be addressed without preservation.