CLINTON METZGER AND CECIL WHITAKER, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constructive Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the conviction of defendant Whitaker on the ground that the state failed to establish his constructive possession of the marijuana found aboard the “Excuse Me.” Whitaker was shown only to be a passenger on a vessel owned and operated by his co-defendant; neither the odor of the marijuana contained in the forward cabin, nor the slight amount (less than a handful) of marijuana scattered over the vessel’s deck (where Whitaker was situated) was sufficient circumstantial evidence of Whitaker’s knowledge and ability to control the contraband to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. Harvey v. State, 390 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
We affirm defendant Metzger’s conviction, because we find that his motion to suppress was properly denied. The arresting officers appropriately stopped the “Excuse Me.”
Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kuhn v. State, 439 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…(Fla. 1st DCA 1967). The decision of the supreme court in Brown is consistent with the decisions in Taylor v. State, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (marijuana in plain view, but defendant guest had no control over premises) and Metzger v. State, 395 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (no constructive possession by a guest who may not have been aware of the contraband). In Brown the contraband was scattered throughout the house, most of it in plain view. The obvious presence of the contraband and Brown’s joint…
-
Thomas v. State, 512 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…the cocaine to Thomas’ hands and legs, as he sat in the car with the substance literally between his thighs, is certainly sufficient to constitute knowledge and actual or constructive possession.6 This case is distinguishable from Metzger v. State, 395 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981), where there were no circumstances necessarily pointing to the defendant’s knowledge of the presence of contraband stored below the deck of a boat on which he was a passenger, and Manning v. State, 355 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 19…1 / 2
-
Brown v. State, 483 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…e. Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1983), cert.\1 denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983). Appellant relies on Dean v. State, 406 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 413 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1982) and Metzger v. State, 395 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) as support for the proposition that finding the contraband along with his clothes in the trunk of a vehicle which he did not own and in which he was riding as a passenger is not a sufficient basis on which to predicate a finding o…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harvey v. State, 390 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)