EMANUEL HURBERT KING, 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.
The court reversed King's cocaine trafficking conviction because the state presented insufficient evidence to prove he had constructive possession of cocaine found in a locked trunk of a car in which he was merely a passenger.
Mere presence as a passenger in a vehicle is insufficient evidence to establish constructive possession of contraband found in a locked trunk.
[1] Mere presence as a passenger in a vehicle containing contraband in a locked trunk is insufficient to establish constructive possession without evidence of dominion and co…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing was a passenger in a car driven by co-defendant Rice when cocaine was found in the locked trunk. The state's only evidence of King's constructive…
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 Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Emanuel Hurbert King appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine in violation of section 893.135(l)(b)l, Florida Statutes, contending that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to prove he was in constructive possession of the cocaine found in the locked trunk of the car in which he was riding as a passenger. The state was required to prove three essential elements to establish King’s constructive possession of the cocaine:
(1) his dominion and control over the contraband;
(2) his knowledge that the contraband was within his presence; and
(3) his knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband.
Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); Corson v. State, 527 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). The record indicates that the only evidence the state presented to prove King had constructive possession of the cocaine was the fact that he had accompanied co-defendant Rice as a passenger in the car. This evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for trafficking. Harris v. State, 501 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Because the record clearly supports the conclusion that the state’s evidence was legally insufficient to establish the elements of the trafficking offense charged, the conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to discharge the defendant. See Rita v. State, 470 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
THOMPSON, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rogers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…passenger: Lewis v. State, 570 So. 2d 346 (Fla.2d DCA 1990) (owner of car was passenger and cocaine not in plain view); McClain v. State, 559 So. 2d 425 (Fla.4th DCA 1990) (passenger sitting in seat under which cocaine was concealed); King v. State, 556 So. 2d 490 (Fla.lst DCA 1990) (passenger in car where cocaine locked in trunk); Soler v. State, 547 So. 2d 251 (Fla.4th DCA 1989) (cocaine concealed on floor behind seat of passenger); Pena v. State, 465 So. 2d 1386 (Fla.2d DCA 1985) (cocaine wrapped in newspa…
-
Earle v. State, 745 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…1990); McClain; Manning v. State, 355 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Green v. State, 667 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); S.B. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Cordero v. State, 589 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Moffatt; King v. State, 556 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). For example, in Green, a trooper stopped the defendant for speeding in a rental car northbound from Miami. The defendant was traveling with his brother, who sat in the front passenger seat at the time of the stop. The car had b…
-
Gueits v. State, 566 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…y statements to anyone. All the admissible evidence against the defendant showed was that he was seated behind the steering wheel of the parked car containing cocaine and that he was named “Carlos,” a common name in South Florida. In King v. State, 556 So. 2d 490, (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), the court stated that the only evidence the state presented to prove the defendant had constructive possession of the cocaine was the fact that he had accompanied a codefendant as a passenger in the car. Citing Harris v. State,…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1983)
- Strickland v. Roosevelt Cnty. Rural Elec. Coop., 463 U.S. 1209 (U.S. 1983)
- Sena v. United States, 463 U.S. 1209 (U.S. 1983)
- Rita v. State, 470 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Harris v. State, 501 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Corson v. State, 527 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)