Hemp vs Cannabis – Campbell v State

How the Legal Distinction Between Hemp and Marijuana Redefines Burden of Proof in Drug Cases

https://2dca.flcourts.gov/pre_opinion_content_download/2449483In a critical decision for Floridians, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed the cannabis trafficking conviction of Pryce Campbell because the State failed to prove that the weight of cannabis he allegedly possessed met the statutory threshold for trafficking. The ruling in Campbell v. State 2D2023-0651 emphasizes the heightened evidentiary burden the State must meet in the post-hemp legalization era, reinforcing the foundational principle that defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt—with clarity, not assumption.

---

In July 2022, law enforcement officers at Tampa International Airport used a narcotics K-9 to identify luggage suspected of containing drugs. The dog alerted on two duffle bags claimed by Campbell, who admitted the bags were his. While he was free to leave, his bags were seized pending a search warrant. Upon executing the warrant, police discovered 50 vacuum-sealed packages of green leafy material—25 in each bag.

However, only one of those 50 bundles was chemically tested, and that single test confirmed the presence of cannabis. Despite this, Campbell was charged with trafficking in more than 25 pounds of cannabis under § 893.135(1)(a)1, Fla. Stat. (2022). At trial he testified that he thought the bags contained hemp that he purchased in Oregon. He was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

Campbell appealed, arguing that the State had failed to prove the quantity of cannabis required for trafficking, especially considering that hemp—which is visually and olfactorily indistinguishable from cannabis—is legal under Florida and federal law.

---

Under Florida law, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a trafficking conviction in cannabis:

1. The defendant knowingly possessed a substance;
   
2. The substance was cannabis, a Schedule I controlled substance; and
   
3. The total weight of cannabis exceeded 25 pounds.
   See § 893.135(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 25.7(a).
   

On appeal, Campbell challenged the third element—the weight and identification of the substance.

---

Historically, Florida courts accepted identification of cannabis based on appearance, odor, and packaging, especially when made by experienced law enforcement officers. See Pama v. State, 552 So. 2d 309, 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). In Greenwade v. State, 124 So. 3d 215 (Fla. 2013), the Florida Supreme Court carved out an exception: chemical testing of every package was not required when the substance had no “identifiable danger of misidentification.”

But that exception no longer applies.

Since the passage of the 2018 federal Farm Bill and Florida’s 2019 Hemp Program under § 581.217, Fla. Stat., hemp is legal in Florida. Hemp and cannabis come from the same plant species—Cannabis sativa—and are virtually identical in appearance, smell, and packaging. The only legal distinction is chemical: hemp must contain less than 0.3% delta-9 THC. See § 581.217(3)(d), Fla. Stat.

Thus, a green leafy substance that smells like marijuana might legally be hemp, and visual or olfactory identification is no longer reliable or legally sufficient.

---

The court held that, given the “identifiable danger of misidentification” between hemp and illegal cannabis, the State could not presume that all 50 bundles were illegal cannabis based on testing only one.

“Where the contents of multiple packages are to be considered in proving the quantity of illegal cannabis, the State can no longer rely solely on appearance and odor… and must chemically test each packet.”
— Campbell v. State, 2D2023-0651

No witness—including law enforcement and the lab analyst—could testify that they could distinguish cannabis from hemp without chemical testing. The only conclusive evidence of illegal cannabis came from the single sample tested by the FDLE laboratory (24.47 grams), which fell far short of the 25-pound threshold for trafficking.

Because the State failed to chemically verify the identity of the rest of the bundles, the court held that the conviction could not stand. The jury was allowed to infer that untested material was illegal cannabis based solely on outdated visual cues—a violation of the presumption of innocence and a misapplication of the law.

---

The appellate court reversed Campbell’s trafficking conviction and directed the trial court to enter a judgment for felony possession of cannabis under § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat., which requires no minimum weight threshold but still applies when the defendant knowingly possesses a controlled substance. The case was remanded for resentencing.

---

This ruling has sweeping consequences for how cannabis cases are prosecuted and defended in Florida:

• Visual identification is no longer sufficient to establish illegal cannabis where hemp could be mistaken for marijuana.
  
• Prosecutors must now chemically test every individually packaged sample when using aggregate weight to meet trafficking thresholds.
  
• Defendants are protected from conviction based on assumptions, especially in a legal landscape where formerly illegal substances (like hemp) are now legal under both state and federal law.
  

“To hold otherwise… would undermine a defendant’s presumption of innocence and erroneously negate the State’s burden to prove the identity and weight of the alleged substance.”
— Campbell v. State 2D2023-0651

---

The Campbell decision marks an important shift in Florida criminal procedure and underscores a vital point: the law must keep pace with science and changing legal definitions. For those facing cannabis-related charges—or any charge involving legally ambiguous substances—this ruling offers strong precedent that reinforces the need for proper evidence, fair trials, and the integrity of the criminal justice process.

If you or someone you know has been charged in a drug case involving cannabis or hemp, consult a qualified criminal defense attorney immediately. The law now demands that the State prove more—and you are entitled to hold them to that burden.

---

Citations:

• § 893.135(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2022)
  
• § 581.217, Fla. Stat. (2022)
  
• Greenwade v. State, 124 So. 3d 215 (Fla. 2013)
  
• Hatcher v. State, 342 So. 3d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
  
• Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 2020)

Criminal Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman at Landsman Law helps people accused of crimes in Gainesville, Alachua County, Levy County, Gilchrist County, and surrounding areas of north Florida. If you need help for yourself or a loved one contact Criminal Defense Attorney Matt Landsman for a free consultation today. For help with any Criminal Matter from Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer Matt Landsman – CALL NOW

If you’re accused of any criminal matter, retaining an attorney is critical to protecting your rights. These cases will involve constitutional questions and concern allegations of misconduct or are sensitive in nature, requiring a skill, preparation and experience. For expert legal help, contact Gainesville Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman to protect your rights today.