LUIS HERNANDEZ, JAMES EATON STAPLES, AND CHIC EDER, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Three defendants appealed convictions for possession of over one hundred pounds of marijuana seized from a truck and boat. The Florida appellate court affirmed all convictions, finding sufficient probable cause for the search and legally adequate evidence of guilt.
The court held that sufficient probable cause existed to search the area and truck containing the contraband, and that legally adequate evidence supported convictions for all three defendants. The court also held that the jury instruction at issue was properly given and did not improperly shift the burden of proof.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence is reviewed based on facts presented in the light most favorable to the order of the trial judge.
[2] Police officers may develop probable cause to search a vehicle when they observe suspicious activity consistent with drug trafficking and discover contraband within the v…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We hold that the evidence is sufficient to show a probable cause to search the area and the truck which contained the contraband.”
The court's determination that the search was constitutional based on sufficient probable cause.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers received a radio dispatch about men unloading bales from a boat at night on the Miami River. Upon arriving at private property used fo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Possession Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These appeals have been consolidated for appellate disposition because they grow out of the same factual situation. Chic Eder and James Eaton Staples appeal a judgment finding them guilty of possession of over one hundred pounds of marijuana, entered upon their plea of nolo contendere, reserving their right to appeal the trial court’s order denying their motions to suppress evidence of the marijuana, which was found in a truck and over which they were alleged to have had knowledge and control. The defendant Luis Hernandez appeals a judgment finding him guilty of the same crime. Hernandez was tried before a jury and found guilty.
Each of the defendants has a point urging error upon the trial court’s denial of defendants’ motion to suppress. For the determination of this question, it is necessary briefly to present the facts as revealed by the record. These facts will be set out in the light most favorable to the order of the trial judge. See Ponder v. State, 323 So. 2d 296 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); and Rodriguez v. State, 189 So. 2d 656 (Fla.3d DCA 1966).
Two police officers received a radio dispatch that an unidentified caller saw several men unloading bales from a boat at night in the Miami River. When the officers saw nothing in the area, they radioed for more information and were given the location of the caller. They contacted the caller, who gave them no further information other than pointing to the general location of the activity he allegedly saw. The officers proceeded to the private property involved. It was an area where lobsters and fishing boats frequently unload. The officers parked their car so as to block ingress and egress to and from the lot. With firearms drawn, they entered the property, saw a truck and heard a rustling noise in the surrounding bushes. Defendant Eder was seen near a moored boat backing into the water. As the officer approached him, Eder began to swim away. The officer returned to the back of the truck, looked inside through the rear door and saw bales of an unidentified substance enclosed in opaque material. One officer observed what he believed to be marijuana on the loading platform of the truck and thereafter cut open one bale to find a substance he recognized as marijuana.
Another police officer later spotted three heads bobbing in the river, one of whom he identified as Hernandez. Hernandez was not wearing a shirt, but a shirt was found aboard the boat on which the marijuana was seized. The officers seized the marijuana in the truck and on the boat.
We hold that the evidence is sufficient to show a probable cause to search the area and the truck which contained the contraband. We further hold that there was adequate, legally-sufficient evidence to withstand defendant Hernandez’s motion for judgment of acquittal in that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the State shows a prima facie case. See Everett v. State, 339 So. 2d 704 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).
Defendant Hernandez urges, in addition to his claim that the evidence was insufficient, that he should be granted a new trial because a state requested instruction given by the court tended to place the burden on him of disproving his own guilt. We have examined the instruction to which objection was made and hold that it was properly given. See Selph v. State, 22 Fla. 537 (1886); and U. S. v. Llamas, 280 F. 2d 392 (2d Cir. 1960).
Having examined the contentions of each appellant in the light of this record and finding no error, the judgments and sentences are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Webb v. State, 373 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…t the evidence amply justifies the existence of probable cause on the part of the officer to believe that the vehicle contained contraband so that the motion to suppress the evidence seized from the trunk was properly denied. See Hernandez v. State, 369 So. 2d 76 (Fla.3rd DCA 1979); Mahoney v. State, 300 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); United States v. Marshall, 452 F.Supp. 1282 (S.D.Fla.1978); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.C…
Authorities Cited
- Onelio Garcia Rodriquez v. State, 189 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Selph v. State, 22 Fla. 537 (Fla. 1886)
- United States v. Llamas, 280 F.2d 392 (2d Cir. 1960)
- Everett v. State, 339 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Lovon Ponder v. State, 323 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)