« Hernandez v. State (5th District Court of Appeals, October 5th, 2012). | Main | Smith v. State (4th District Court of Appeals, April 25th, 2012). »

Dieujuste v. State (4th District Court of Appeals, May 2nd 2012).

The issue presented on appeal in this case was whether there was enough evidence of Defendant's participation in any prior activity regarding a drug transaction sufficient to establish an agreement to traffic in oxycodone.  The evidence showed that the Defendant was sitting in the back seat of her vehicle while the co-defendant driver completed an undercover drug transaction inside an apartment.  Later she was found in possession of oxycodone in a pill bottle with her name on it, and with $400 in marked bills that the co-defendant had obtained from the undercover police officer.

The law in Florida requires that to establish a conspiracy and a defendant's participation in it, the State must prove an express or implied agreement or understanding between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense, and an intention to commit that offense.  When the evidence establishes that the defendant was merely present at the scene of the crime, had knowledge of the crime, or even aided others in the commission of the crime, it is inadequate, without more, to sustain a conspiracy conviction.