STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT SAMUEL CRAIG, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the information because the evidence was sufficient to raise issues of fact regarding the inmate's knowledge of the contraband.
Prison officials found a homemade knife in an inmate's mattress during a cell search. The inmate had exclusive control over the cell during the period…
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 Circumstantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
State seeks review of the trial court’s order granting Craig’s motion to dismiss the information charging him with possession of a weapon by a prison inmate. Section 944.43, Fla.Stat. (1979). We reverse.
On September 10, 1980, Craig, an inmate in Florida State Prison, was transferred to a new cell. At the time of transfer, prison officials stripped and searched Craig but found nothing unusual. On September 14, 1980, prison authorities conducted a general search of several cells, including Craig’s. During the search, a homemade knife was found imbedded in his mattress. As a result, the State charged appellee with possession of a knife by a prisoner. On May 28, 1981, appellee moved to dismiss, asserting the evidence was merely circumstantial, did not demonstrate appellee knew of the knife’s presence and, therefore, did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The trial court granted the motion. The State then filed this appeal.
The record below indicates appel-lee had exclusive control over the cell and its contents from September 10, 1980, through September 14, 1980. Where the premises on which contraband is found are in the exclusive possession and control of the accused, knowledge of the contraband’s presence and the ability to maintain control over the contraband may be inferred. Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). Further, the question of whether appellee had knowledge of the knife’s presence is an ultimate fact question which cannot be appropriately resolved on motion to dismiss. Cummings v. State, 378 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Since the facts are sufficient to raise issues which must be resolved by the trier of fact, the order appealed is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to the trial court to permit the cause to proceed in a manner consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BOOTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. OXX, 417 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…... actual physical possession with knowledge of the same). . See, e.g., Williams v. State, 413 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (crime of introduction of contraband into a state correctional facility (§ 944.47) requires knowledge); State v. Craig, 413 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (crime of possession of a weapon by a prisoner (§ 944.-43, Fla.Stat. (1979)) requires “knowing” possession). . See, e.g., State v. Medlin, 273 So. 2d 394 (Fla.1973); Broic v. State, 79 So. 2d 775 (Fla.1955). In Medlin, the appel…1 / 3
-
LEE v. State, 835 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…So. 2d 47, 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(cocaine found in dresser drawer next to personal papers belonging exclusively to defendant and dresser was located in defendant’s bedroom in house defendant rented and of which he was sole occupant); State v. Craig, 413 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(weapon found in prison cell over which defendant maintained exclusive possession between September 10th through September 14th). Although, here, there were no such additional factors, sole possession and control of the vehicle,…
-
DeFRIEST v. State, 453 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…s. The State produced evidence that the premises on which the contraband was found were in DeFriest’s exclusive possession and control. His knowledge of and ability to maintain control over the contraband could therefore be inferred. State v. Craig, 413 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). DeFriest never rebutted this inference. AFFIRMED. SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ„ concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Cummings v. State, 378 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)