This Article analyzes the Florida Supreme Court decision in State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012), and how each justice decided the issue. The Court set out to definitively decide a controversial issue involving Section 893.13 of the Florida Statutes, a law that arguably made drug possession a strict liability offense. However, no majority was reached; the Court was split into a three-justice plurality, with two concurrences and two dissents. A professor at heart, Batey analyzes the approach each justice took in reaching a decision and assigns them all grades based on the legal deduction, reasoning, and justification found in each opinion. Arguing that no real conclusion was reached to this difficult legal issue, Professor Batey explores the shortcomings in each justice’s interpretation of the law and how the issue should have been decided given each justice’s prior history and ideological views, as well as by the precedent set by the Court itself.