Skip to main content

Wright v. State

Citations

  • 920 So. 2d 21
  • 2005 WL 1398026

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • explaining that section 893.101 “does not require the defendant to prove or disprove knowledge”
  • explaining that section 893.101 “does not require the defendant to prove or disprove knowledge”
  • “An affirmative defense does not concern itself with the elements of the offense at all; it concedes them” and “asserts a good excuse or reason.”
  • “The statute does two things: it makes possession of a controlled substance a general intent crime ... and, second, it allows a defendant to assert lack of knowledge as an affirmative defense.”
  • the legislature has broad authority to determine intent requirements in defining crimes and courts must defer to the legislative determination on such matters as long as there is a rational basis for the legislative action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stone

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

19 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.