## Facts

- Florida prosecuted Luke Jarrod Adkins and other defendants in multiple pending cases under Florida Statutes section 893.13 for controlled-substance offenses.
- Florida law, as amended by section 893.101, provides that knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance is not an element of chapter 893 offenses.
- The statutory scheme preserves as an element the defendant’s knowledge of the presence of the substance.
- Section 893.101 designates lack of knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance as an affirmative defense.
- The circuit court dismissed charges in forty-six cases, ruling section 893.13 facially unconstitutional under federal and state due process because it allegedly eliminated a required mens rea.
- The State appealed, and the district court certified the matter for immediate review by the Florida Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether section 893.13, as modified by section 893.101 to remove knowledge of a substance’s illicit nature as an element and treat lack of such knowledge as an affirmative defense, is facially unconstitutional under the Due Process Clauses of the Florida and United States Constitutions.
2. Whether due process permits the Legislature to define chapter 893 drug offenses to require proof of knowledge of presence, while placing on the defendant the burden to prove lack of knowledge of illicit nature as an affirmative defense.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s dismissal orders.
- The Court held section 893.13, as modified by section 893.101, is not facially unconstitutional under the Florida or United States Due Process Clauses.
- The Court concluded the Legislature could eliminate knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance as an element, while still requiring the State to prove knowledge of presence and permitting an affirmative defense for lack of illicit-nature knowledge.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- The Legislature has broad authority to define criminal offenses and specify their elements, subject to constitutional limits.
- Due process is satisfied where the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements the Legislature defines, including that the defendant knew of the presence of the substance and that the substance is a controlled substance.
- A statute may treat lack of knowledge of a controlled substance’s illicit nature as an affirmative defense without facially violating due process, where the State retains the burden on the offense’s defined elements.
- Facial constitutional challenges require showing the statute cannot be validly applied under any set of circumstances; that standard was not met.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court upheld Florida’s controlled-substance statutory scheme, allowing prosecutions without proof that the defendant knew the illicit nature of the substance, while preserving knowledge of presence as an element and permitting defendants to assert lack of illicit-nature knowledge as an affirmative defense.


State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012)