Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Gilchrist v. State
Citations: 784 So. 2d 462; 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 832; 2001 WL 76745Docket: No. 3D00-743
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; January 28, 2001; Florida; State Appellate Court
Maurice Gilchrist's conviction for possession of heroin has been reversed due to insufficient evidence. At the time of his arrest, he was found with a plastic baggie containing trace amounts of heroin, weighing less than one-tenth of a gram. The court referenced the precedent set in *Lord v. State*, which established that mere trace amounts of a controlled substance on an object, especially one designed for legitimate use, do not warrant a felony conviction for possession. Instead, such instances may lead to a charge of possession of drug paraphernalia if there is additional evidence of its use for drug-related activities. The court concluded that Gilchrist's motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted, as the evidence did not support a felony charge. Although he could have been charged with drug paraphernalia based on his admission of heroin addiction, the State did not pursue this charge. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and Gilchrist is to be discharged from this conviction.