Santiago v. State
The State charged Santiago with trafficking in fentanyl 'as described in section 893.03(2)(b)9.,' but its proof showed the seized substance was para-Fluorofentanyl, a Schedule I fentanyl derivative listed in section 893.03(1)(a)62. The Sixth DCA held the variance was fatal: because section 893.135(1)(c)4. lists the qualifying substances disjunctively as alternative means, the State was bound to prove the means it charged, and its mid-trial amendment after the close of its case could not cure the failure of proof. Conviction reversed with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal.
Key facts
- Santiago was charged with trafficking in fentanyl under section 893.03(2)(b)9., but the State's evidence showed the seized substance was para-Fluorofentanyl, a Schedule I fentanyl derivative listed under section 893.03(1)(a)62.
- The trial court allowed the State to amend the charging information mid-trial after the close of the State's case to conform to the proof presented.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a valuable defense tool in drug-trafficking prosecutions where charging documents recite 'fentanyl' generically while lab reports identify an analogue or derivative under a different schedule and statutory… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.