ALLAN SHAD, 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.
Appellant was convicted of attempted possession of more than 100 pounds of cannabis with intent to sell based on constructive possession theory. The court reversed, holding that although the State established knowledge of the marijuana's presence, it failed to prove the defendant had the ability to maintain control over or reduce the contraband to his possession.
The court reversed, holding that the State failed to prove the essential element that the defendant had the ability to maintain control over the contraband or reduce it to his possession, even assuming his knowledge of the marijuana's presence. The denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal was error.
[1] Constructive possession of a controlled substance requires knowledge of its presence and the ability to maintain control over it.
[2] When an accused does not have exclusive control of a vehicle, the prosecution must prove joint control and knowledge of the contraband's presence to establish constructiv…
Previewing 2 of 5 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, upon which the State's case necessarily rested, exists where the accused without physical possession of the controlled substance knows of its presence on or about his premises and has the ability to maintain control over the controlled substance.”
Establishes the legal standard for constructive possession that must be satisfied
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 31, 1978, an agricultural inspector stopped a pickup truck after it passed his station without stopping. Upon opening the camper top with the…
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 Knowledge Of Contraband cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr. (Retired), Associate Judge.
Defendant appeals from his conviction of attempted possession of more than one hun dred pounds of cannabis with intent to sell.1 We reverse.
The State’s case against the Defendant established that on March 31, 1978, at approximately 2:30 a. m., an agricultural inspector pursued a pick-up truck with a camper top which passed his station without stopping. The truck was subsequently stopped by the agricultural inspector, who opened the camper top from the rear with the driver’s permission. Upon opening the camper top, he detected the marijuana-like odor emanating from the rear of the truck. His inspection thereafter disclosed several wrapped bales of marijuana concealed under a blanket, on top of which were clothes belonging to the Defendant,2 who was a passenger. Constructive possession, upon which the State’s case necessarily rested, exists where the accused without physical possession of the controlled substance knows of its presence on or about his premises and has the ability to maintain control over the controlled substance. Hively v. State, 336 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Since the Defendant did not have exclusive control of the truck, the prosecution’s burden was to prove that he had constructive possession of the marijuana by virtue of joint control of the truck with knowledge of its contents. Pacheco v. State, 386 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Doby v. State, 352 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
The State contends that the presence of Defendant’s clothes in the rear of the truck, coupled with the strong odor of marijuana emanating from the rear of the truck when the camper top was opened, supports a reasonable inference that the Defendant placed his clothes in the rear of the truck and, in so doing, necessarily detected the presence of marijuana. This in turn supports the further inference that he had knowledge of its presence in the vehicle. Without agreeing, we presuppose his knowledge of its presence in reaching our disposition of the case. Given the Defendant’s knowledge of the presence of the cannabis, the State nonetheless had the burden to prove also that he had the ability to maintain control over the contraband or reduce it to his possession. Daudt v. State, 368 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979).
Nothing in the State’s case could fairly and reasonably support an inference tending to prove this element of constructive possession.
Therefore, we hold that it was error to deny his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case and renewed at the close of all of the evidence. Our disposition on this point makes it unnecessary for us to consider or pass upon other attacks made on the sufficiency of the evidence or the other points raised on appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED with instructions to discharge the Defendant.
LARRY G. SMITH and McCORD, JJ., concur. . A jury verdict of attempted possession of more than five grams of cannabis with intent to sell was also returned against the defendant. Since this charge is a lesser-included offense of attempted possession of more than one hundred pounds of cannabis with intent to sell, the trial judge appropriately did not adjudicate the defendant guilty of or sentence him for the lesser-included offense. See Purvis v. State, 370 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979).
. Defendant testified that friends had arranged for him to get a ride north with a person then unknown to him and that, when the driver of the pick-up arrived at the place where Defendant was staying, he gave his clothes, on a hanger, to the driver who put them in the rear of the truck, Defendant leaving the house several minutes later and walking directly to the cab section of the truck. This testimony was corroborated by another witness.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 483 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…act along with the other proven facts was a sufficient basis upon which the jury could find that the contraband belonged to the defendant, that he had placed it in the trunk with his clothes and that he maintained control over it. Cf. Shad v. State, 394 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 402 So. 2d 613 (Fla.1981). [*746] Appellant next contends that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on necessarily included lesser offenses.3 On the trafficking charge, a first degree felony, appellant…
-
State v. Farrugia, 419 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…aband who were unaware of its presence in the vehicle they were hired to operate. Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur. . In Shad v. State, 394 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the defendant was a mere passenger, and this court found that, even assuming knowledge on his part of the presence of contraband in the camper top of the vehicle, the State failed to prove that he had the ability to maintain con…
-
Vaughn Beasley Cordle v. State, 435 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…a. Appellant Smith’s actions indelibly stamp him as a participant in the act of taking possession of the plane’s cargo, rather than one who was merely present at the scene, or in a dwelling or vehicle in which contraband is found. Cf. Shad v. State, 394 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Mishmash v. State, 423 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Thompson v. State, 375 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). As for appellant Smith’s knowledge that the cargo of the plane was contraband, the jury was entitled to infer such kn…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- van Griffin v. State, 336 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Daudt v. State, 368 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Doby v. State, 352 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Purvis v. State, 370 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Claffey v. Cornelia A. Myers, 386 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Pacheco v. State, 386 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)