CAROLINE MARIE HALL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; JAMES LARRY HALL, APPELLANT, V. 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.
Caroline Marie Hall and James Larry Hall appeal their convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to sell. The court reverses, holding that where a controlled substance is found in premises under joint possession, the state must present affirmative proof of the defendants' knowledge of the contraband's presence, which cannot be inferred.
The court holds that the state failed to make a prima facie case because where premises are in joint possession rather than exclusive possession, proof of the defendant's knowledge of the contraband and ability to control it cannot be inferred and must be affirmatively established; the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal.
[1] Constructive possession of contraband exists when a defendant knows of its presence on their premises and has the ability to maintain control over it.
[2] Where premises are in the joint possession of the accused, knowledge of the presence of controlled substances and the ability to maintain control must be established by p…
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“Constructive possession exists when the defendant knows of the presence of the controlled substance on his premises and has the ability to maintain control over it.”
Establishes the two elements required for constructive possession
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceInvestigators executed a search warrant at appellants' one-room residence and found marijuana hidden out of view under the appellants' bed. Appellants…
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 With Intent To Sell cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
Appellants appeal from their convictions of possession of marijuana in excess of five grams with intent to sell in violation of Section 893.13(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1977). Appellants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state’s case and renewed at. the close of all the evidence because the state failed to show that they had any knowledge of the presence of the contraband. We agree and reverse.
At trial the state presented the following testimony: Thurlin Runkle, an investigator for the Sheriff’s Department, testified about the execution of a search warrant at appellants’ one room residence, said that he found certain items, later proved to contain marijuana, out of view under appellants’ bed in the room; and that at the time of the search although appellants’ son, Roger, slept in an adjacent building, he resided at the residence with appellants. Sergeant Riley testified that he accompanied Runkle in the search, and that he had seen the mari juana seized from under the bed. Deputy McGinn testified as to the chain of custody of the items seized. Dr. Davidson, a forensic chemist with the Sheriff’s Department, testified that the substance seized tested positive for marijuana and that it exceeded five grams after subtracting an estimated allowance for the stems and seeds present. The state then rested. Appellants moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the state had failed to present any direct evidence that they knew of the presence of the contraband in the residence. The motion was denied.
“Possession,” as used in Section 893.13(1), Florida Statutes (1977), where not in the physical possession of the defendant, may be proved by showing constructive possession. Constructive possession exists when the defendant knows of the presence of the controlled substance on his premises and has the ability to maintain control over it. Willis v. State, 320 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Where the possession of the premises on which the controlled substance is found is not in the exclusive, but only in the joint possession of the accused, knowledge of the presence of the substance on the premises and the accused’s ability to maintain control over it must be established by proof, and may not be inferred. Smith v. State, 279 So. 2d 27 (Fla.1973); Clark v. State, 359 So. 2d 458. (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Griffin v. State, 276 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Markman v. State, 210 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
In the case at bar, the appellants’ conviction was based on constructive possession because appellants were not in physical possession of the marijuana. The state presented evidence that the residence was in the joint possession of, and there was free access to it by, Caroline, James and Roger Hall and that the marijuana was found out of plain view under the appellants’ bed. Since the premises were not in the exclusive possession of appellants but only in their joint possession, the state was required to present proof that appellants knew of the presence of the marijuana and were able to maintain control over it. The state failed to do this.
We therefore hold that the state failed to make a prima facie case of possession (with intent to sell), and that the trial court erred in denying appellants’ motion for a judgment of acquittal.
Accordingly, the judgments are reversed, the sentences are vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to discharge the defendants.
BOARDMAN, A. C. J., and ULMER, RAY E., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dean v. State, 406 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…ion of the premises on which the controlled substance is found, the accused’s knowledge of the presence of the substance on the premises and his ability to maintain control over it must be established by proof and may not be inferred. Hall v. State, 382 So. 2d 742 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Taylor v. State, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). Under these standards, the state did not prove that Tommy Dean had possession of the marijuana in the paper bag. None of the evidence presented by the state showed .that he had th…
-
Coley v. State, 393 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ve possession nor may it be inferred, under the circumstances, that he had the ability to maintain control over the area in which the shotgun was found. Such possession and control must be established by proof and may not be inferred. Hall v. State, 382 So. 2d 742 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Clark v. State, 359 So. 2d 458 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 366 So. 2d 880 (Fla.1979). The defendant at all times denied having any knowledge of the shotgun. Additionally, the report of the domestic quarrel he had with his e…
-
Giddens v. State, 443 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…iction must be considered upon the basis of constructive possession. Constructive possession exists when a person has knowledge of the presence of a controlled substance on his premises and has the ability to maintain control over it. Hall v. State, 382 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). If the premises on which a controlled substance is found is in the exclusive possession and control of the accused, knowledge of the presence of that controlled substance on th…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Ira Dennis Markman v. State, 210 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Smith v. State, 279 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1973)
- Willis v. State, 320 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Griffin v. State, 276 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Evaret Clark v. State, 359 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)