BETTY ANN COOK, 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.
Betty Ann Cook appeals her conviction for constructive possession of a crack pipe found in her purse during a police raid on a bar where she worked as a dancer. The court reversed, finding the state's circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove Cook had knowledge of and control over the contraband, as the evidence was consistent with her innocence.
The court held that the state's evidence was insufficient because it was not inconsistent with Cook's reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Since Cook did not have exclusive control over the bar premises, the state was required to prove by independent evidence her knowledge of and ability to control the contraband, which it failed to do. The trial court should have granted Cook's motion for judgment of acquittal.
[1] To establish constructive possession of contraband, the state must prove the defendant knew of its presence, knew of its illicit nature, and had dominion and control over…
[2] When contraband is found in an area not within the exclusive possession of the accused, the state must present independent proof of the defendant's knowledge of and abili…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“To establish constructive possession of contraband, the state must show that the defendant (1) knew of the presence of the contraband, (2) knew of its illicit nature, and (3) had dominion and control over it.”
Establishes the three-part test required to prove constructive possession of contraband.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a police raid on a bar, officers found a crack pipe in Cook's open purse while she was performing on stage. Cook testified she had placed her e…
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 Possession Of Contraband cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Cook appeals the trial court’s finding that she was in constructive possession of a crack pipe and its residue, contending that proof of possession was legally insufficient to show that she had knowledge and ability to maintain control over the pipe. We agree and reverse with directions that appellant be discharged as to such offense.
The evidence reveals that a law enforcement officer found the crack pipe in appellant’s open purse during a raid. Appellant, a dancer at the bar that was raided, testified that she had placed the purse, which had no money inside it, on the bar and left it there during one of her dance routines. The raid took place while appellant was on stage.
Because the crack pipe was not found in Cook’s actual possession, the state was required to prove that she constructively possessed it. To establish constructive possession of contraband, the state must show that the defendant (1) knew of the presence of the contraband, (2) knew of its illicit nature, and (3) had dominion and control over it. Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983). “If the premises, area, structure, vehicle, etc. in which a contraband substance is found is within the exclusive possession of the accused, the accused’s guilty knowledge of the presence of the contraband, together with his ability to maintain control over it, may be inferred.” Wale v. State, 397 So. 2d 738, 739-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
When the premises on which the contraband is found are not in the defendant’s exclusive control, the state must establish by independent proof, rather than by inference, knowledge and ability to control the contraband. Brown, 428 So. 2d at 252. When constructive possession is shown by circumstantial evidence, as here, the evidence must be inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of innocence. D.K.W. v. State, 398 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
In our judgment the state’s evidence was not inconsistent with the defendant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Appellant obviously did not have exclusive dominion and control over the bar where the contraband was found, and the state presented no independent proof of the defendant’s knowledge of, or ability to control, the contraband. Even the state’s own evidence established that people sitting at or near the bar had access to appellant’s purse during the confusion that ensued after the police entered the bar area. As in Doby v. State, 352 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), no direct evidence connected the defendant to the contraband, and the evidence suggesting that appellant knew of the presence of the crack pipe within her purse was entirely circumstantial.
Moreover, this evidence reasonably supports an inference that the appellant was unaware of its presence.
Consequently, the trial judge should have granted Cook’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
REVERSED.
WIGGINTON and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knight v. State, 186 So. 3d 1005 (Fla. 2016)…ht v. State, 107 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). The district court certified that it's' decision is in direct conflict with the decisions of the First District Court of Appeal in Evans v. State, 32 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), and Cook v. State, 571 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); the decisions of the Second District Court of Appeal in P.M.M. v. State, 884 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), N.K.W., Jr. v. State, 788 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), and S.B. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); and the…
-
Evans v. State, 32 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…sis for a constructive possession case where the premises, including the master bedroom, are jointly occupied, leads us to conclude the State offered no independent proof that appellant knew about the hidden controlled substances. See Cook v. State, 571 So. 2d 530, 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (concluding the circumstantial evidence did not support a conviction of constructive possession of a crack pipe found in the defendant’s purse after the police raided a dance bar, where the defendant was performing on stage…
-
Jackson v. State, 995 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…otographs admitted into evidence — that it was made to be carried in a larger purse and would not be suitable for carrying in a man’s pocket. These circumstances are all inconsistent with Jackson’s theory of events. Jackson relies on Cook v. State, 571 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and Doby v. State, 352 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), both of which held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction based on constructive possession of contraband. His reliance is unwarranted. Both Cook and Dob…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1983)
- Wale v. State, 397 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- 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)
- Doby v. State, 352 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- D.K.W. v. State, 398 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)