BOBBY JOE JONES, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Bobby Joe Jones was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon after police discovered a shotgun in a vehicle he was driving. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the state had to prove Jones had knowledge of the firearm's presence.
The trial court erred in refusing the requested jury instruction. Because the conviction could not be sustained on an ownership theory, the state had the burden of proving that Jones's possession was conscious and substantial and not merely involuntary or superficial.
[1] A conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon requires proof that the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the firearm.
[2] Where a firearm is found in a vehicle not owned by the defendant, the State bears the burden of proving the defendant's possession was conscious and substantial, not mere…
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“Because the conviction could not be sustained on an ownership theory, the state had the burden of proving that [the defendant's] possession was conscious and substantial and not merely involuntary or superficial.”
Establishes the legal standard requiring proof of conscious and substantial possession when a firearm is found in a non-owned vehicle.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA witness reported seeing a male carrying a shotgun prepare to enter a specific automobile. Ten to fifteen minutes later, police stopped that vehicle …
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 Conscious And Substantial Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Bobby Joe Jones appeals his conviction following a jury trial on the charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Evidence at trial revealed that a witness had reported observing a male, carrying a shotgun, prepare to enter an automobile. Although not identifying Jones specifically, the witness had described the automobile. Ten to fifteen minutes later, police stopped the vehicle for a traffic infraction and discovered a shotgun lying on the back seat under a red flannel shirt; only a portion of the stock of the gun was visible. At the time of the arrest, Jones was driving the vehicle, and the owner of the vehicle was a passenger. On appeal, Jones complains that the trial court erred in denying his requested jury instruction that the state was required to prove he had knowledge of the presence of the firearm. The state argues only that Jones did not preserve the issue for appeal because he did not submit a written jury instruction to the trial court. See Graives v. State, 127 Fla. 182, 172 So. 716 (1937); Watkins v. State, 519 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Jones overcame that argument by supplementing the record with a copy of the requested instruction.
In White v. State, 539 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), the defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The car in which the firearm was found was borrowed by the defendant from the owner, and the defendant denied knowledge of the presence of the gun beneath the car seat. The defense requested an instruction that the state had to prove the defendant’s knowledge that the gun was in the car. The trial court refused the requested instruction, and this court held the refusal to be error, citing Wilcox v. State, 522 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and Jones v. State, 325 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 339 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1976). This court held that, “[bjecause the conviction could not be sustained on an ownership theory, the state had the burden of proving that [the defendant’s] possession was conscious and substantial and not merely involuntary or superficial.” White, at 579.
In the instant case, the requested instruction was important because the witness had not identified Jones and because the automobile had not been observed for the period of time between the report by the witness and the stop of the vehicle. We reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new trial.
REVERSED; REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McClinton v. McNeil, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (M.D. Fla. 2008)…ns is reversible error. See Creamer v. State, 605 So.2d 541, 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (reversing felon in possession conviction and remanding for new trial where trial court did not instruct jury as to knowledge requirement); Jones v. State, 596 So.2d 1221, 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (same); see also Johnson v. State, 890 So.2d 432, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (reversing denial of state *1327 habeas petition and remanding for further proceedings to determine whether jury was instructed as to the…
Authorities Cited
- Graives v. State, 127 Fla. 182 (Fla. 1936)
- Clevent D. Wilcox v. State, 522 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Jones v. State, 325 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Watkins v. State, 519 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Felton White v. State, 539 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- State v. Martin, 539 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)