HIRAM CAZES PARNELL, 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.
Hiram Cazes Parnell was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon based on a rifle found in a car in which he was a passenger. The court reversed the conviction, finding insufficient evidence that Parnell knew of the rifle's presence in the vehicle.
The conviction was reversed because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Parnell knew the rifle was present in the car. Even assuming the state could have proven Parnell's ability to maintain dominion and control, the evidence was insufficient to establish his knowledge of the firearm.
[1] To prove constructive possession of a firearm, the State must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the firearm was present and had the ability to m…
[2] Evidence that a firearm was in plain view on the floor of a vehicle behind the front seat is insufficient to prove a passenger's knowledge of its presence.
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“Since the evidence failed to show actual possession by the appellant, the State's case rises or falls on the probative value of the evidence adduced regarding constructive possession.”
Establishes that the prosecution's case depends entirely on proving constructive possession rather than actual possession.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice observed Parnell and Furlong looking in a residence window in Fort Lauderdale and stopped them. They found Furlong's Lincoln parked in a nearby…
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 Presence cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant seeks reversal of the judgment of guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and sentence of fifteen years in prison.
Appellant and a person named Furlong were observed by police looking in the rear window of a residence in Fort Lauderdale. The police stopped appellant and Furlong and inquired about their presence in the neighborhood. It was ultimately determined that the two had driven up to Fort Lauderdale in Furlong’s Lincoln, which the police found parked in the carport of a nearby vacant residence. A rifle was found on the floor behind the front seat of the Lincoln.
Appellant was charged with, and convicted by a jury of, possession of a firearm (the rifle) by a convicted felon.
Since the evidence failed to show actual possession by the appellant, the State’s case rises or falls on the probative value of the evidence adduced regarding constructive possession. The State needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant (1) knew the rifle was in the car, and (2) had the ability to maintain dominion and control over the piece. Hively v. State, 336 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Viewed in a light most supportive of the verdict and judgment the evidence shows that appellant originally lied about how he came to Fort Lauderdale, but eventually he admitted he had been a passenger in the Lincoln when it arrived at the carport location. One of the officers testified that although it was dark, use of a flashlight enabled him to see the rifle on the floor of the Lincoln behind the front seat. He said the rifle was “in plain view.” His conclusion apparently was based upon the fact that he saw it, and therefore anyone would see it. The evidence further showed that Furlong had taken the rifle, handguns, and flex cuffs from his cousin, a policeman in Miami. Furthermore, Furlong admitted to the police that he owned the car and that the rifle was in his possession.
Under these circumstances even if the State had been able to prove ability to maintain dominion and control, which we doubt, the evidence adduced was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant knew the rifle was present in the car. Compare Taylor v. State, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and sentence appealed from.
LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clevent D. Wilcox v. State, 522 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ases involving the possession of drugs, in order to prove possession of a firearm, there must be evidence to support a finding that the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the gun and the ability to exercise control over it. Parnell v. State, 438 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see Maloney, 146 So. 2d at 581; Hively, 336 So. 2d at 127 (knowledge of presence of drugs is required to prove constructive possession); see also Broughton v. State, 12 F.L.W. 2137 (Fla. 1st DCA September 3, 1987) (evidence that…
-
Felton White v. State, 539 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…1988), “in order to prove possession of a firearm, there must be evidence to support a finding that the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the gun and the [*579] ability to exercise control over it.” Wilcox at 1064, citing Parnell v. State, 438 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Because the conviction cannot be sustained on an ownership theory, the state had the burden of proving that White’s possession was conscious and substantial and not merely involuntary or superficial. Jones v. State, 325 So. 2d 4…
-
Eliezer Barrientos v. State, 825 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…he state was required to prove appellant had constructive possession of the weapon. This requires proof that appellant “(1) knew the [weapon] was in the car, and (2) had the ability to maintain dominion and control over the piece.” Parnell v. State, 438 So. 2d 407, 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). That appellant turned around and departed or fled upon seeing the officers tended to prove his consciousness of guilt that he had a weapon in his possession. Appellant contends that this did not necessarily indicate consci…
Authorities Cited
- van Griffin v. State, 336 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist. v. Deadwyler, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Odessa D. Taylor v. State, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)