REGINALD JUAN WATTS, 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 convictions for cocaine and drug paraphernalia possession because the state failed to prove the defendant possessed the items, as fingerprints on a beer can converted to a crackpipe could have been placed before or after conversion.
Possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia cannot be proven where fingerprints on a converted beer can lack evidence of when they were placed relative to the conversion.
[1] Possession of drug paraphernalia cannot be established by fingerprints on a converted item when the timing of the fingerprint placement relative to the conversion is unkn…
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 intelligenceTwo beer cans converted into crackpipes were found in a bathroom cabinet of an apartment rented by the defendant's girlfriend. The defendant sometimes…
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 Drug Paraphernalia cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
We reverse appellant’s convictions for possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia because the state failed to prove possession by the defendant.
Two beer cans which had, at some time, been converted into cocaine smoking devices (“crackpipes”) were found by the searching officers in a cabinet underneath the bathroom sink in a duplex apartment occupied by the defendant’s girlfriend, Betty Ann Rivers, and her son (of unknown age). The apartment was rented to Rivers but the defendant sometimes “stayed” there, although he also “stayed” someplace else. The defendant and another black male were in a parking lot outside the apartment building when the officers arrived to search the premises.
Although the evidence established that two fingerprints of the defendant were found on one of the two beer cans, there is no evidence establishing whether the prints were placed on the can before or after the can was converted into drug paraphernalia. Clearly, the evidence was insufficient to prove possession by the defendant and the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal which mo tion was made at the close of the state s case-in-chief. See Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); Arant v. State, 256 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Markman v. State, 210 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).
REVERSED.
SHIVERS, C.J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Arant v. State, 256 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Ira Dennis Markman v. State, 210 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)