KERRY LANCE SKELTON, 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.
Kerry Lance Skelton was convicted of cocaine possession based on a plastic baggie containing cocaine residue found under the passenger seat where he was sitting. The appellate court reversed, holding that mere proximity to contraband is insufficient to establish constructive possession and that the state failed to present evidence of Skelton's knowledge or control over the drugs.
The court reversed Skelton's conviction and directed his discharge because the state presented insufficient evidence to prove possession. Mere proximity to contraband is insufficient to establish constructive possession; the state must prove either actual knowledge or present incriminating statements and circumstances from which knowledge can be inferred.
[1] To prove constructive possession of contraband, the state must show the accused had dominion and control over the contraband, knowledge that the contraband was within his…
[2] When contraband is found in a place jointly occupied by two or more persons, knowledge of the contraband's presence and the accused's ability to control it cannot be infe…
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“In order to prove guilt based on constructive possession, the state must show that the accused had dominion and control over the contraband, had knowledge that the contraband was within his presence, and had knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband.”
Establishes the three-part test for constructive possession that the state must satisfy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice officers stopped a car in which Skelton was a passenger and ordered him to exit. Officers discovered a plastic baggie containing cocaine residu…
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 Mere Proximity To Contraband cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
We reverse the conviction of Kerry Lance Skelton for possession of cocaine and direct his discharge because there was insufficient evidence that he possessed cocaine.
The following evidence was offered at trial. Police officers stopped the car in which Skelton was a passenger. The officer ordered Skelton to exit the car. The officer found a plastic baggie containing cocaine residue partially hidden under the passenger seat near where Skelton’s feet had been. The officers arrested Skelton for possession of cocaine. At the conclusion of this evidence, Skelton moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the state presented insufficient evidence to prove possession. The trial judge denied the motion and, as the trier of fact, found him guilty.
Skelton did not have actual possession of the cocaine. In order to prove guilt based on constructive possession, the state must show that the accused had dominion and control over the contraband, had knowledge that the contraband was within his presence, and had knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband. Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
When the contraband is found at a place jointly occupied by two or more persons, knowledge of the presence of the contraband and the accused’s ability to maintain control over it will not be inferred and must be established by proof. Murphy v. State, 511 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
The state must prove either that the accused had actual knowledge of the presence of the contraband or present incriminating statements and circumstances from which a trier of fact lawfully might infer knowledge by the accused of the presence of the contraband. Murphy. Mere proximity to contraband is insufficient to establish constructive possession. Lewis v. State, 570 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
The only evidence the state presented in this case was Skelton’s proximity to the contraband. We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he possessed the cocaine. The case of Cordero v. State, 589 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) is factually similar. In Cordero officers stopped a vehicle in which Cordero was the front seat passenger. When Cordero exited the car, the officer found a bag containing cocaine underneath the passenger seat between the transmission tunnel and the seat. The Fifth District concluded that this evidence was insufficient to support a finding that Cordero had knowledge of the presence of the cocaine or at any time controlled it even though the cocaine bag was located near where Corde-ro’s feet had been.
In further support of our holding are the cases where there was more evidence than that presented in the instant case in which the courts found that there was insufficient evidence. See, e.g., Hively v. State, 336 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (bag containing marijuana found in close proximity to defendant; pipe on console between automobile’s bucket seats; two roaches and a roach clip in the automobile ashtray; and the odor of marijuana); D.J. v. State, 330 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (odor of burning marijuana; half burned marijuana cigarette on floor next to appellant; another half burned marijuana cigarette on the floor by the driver’s seat; marijuana cigarette in ashtray; marijuana cigarette in glove compartment; and numerous marijuana seeds in the driver’s seat and on the console between the two front bucket seats).
We reverse and remand this case with directions to the trial court to discharge Skelton.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996)…ANSTEAD, Justice. We have for review Chicone v. State, 658 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). We accepted jurisdiction based upon conflict with numerous decisions, including: Skelton v. State, 609 So. 2d 716, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Moffatt v. State, 583 So. 2d 779, 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Kuhn v. State, 439 So. 2d 291, 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77' L.Ed.2d 1391 (198…
-
S.B. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…nd was behind the defendant’s head at the time of the stop. There was evidence of two different illegal drugs in at least two different compartments of the purse. The supreme court analyzed the case as one of actual possession. In Skelton v. State, 609 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), an officer stopped a ear and found a plastic bag containing cocaine under a passenger’s seat. This court reversed the conviction because the state faded to prove that the passenger had actual possession of the illegal drugs or th…
-
Hargrove v. State, 928 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…eir presence or illicit nature. Because Hargrove was not in actual possession of the pipe, the State had to establish his constructive possession of the pipe and residue. See Downard v. State, 793 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Skelton v. State, 609 So. 2d 716, 716-17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In a constructive possession case, it is the State’s burden to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the presence of the illegal items, was able to exercise dominion and control over them, and knew o…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- van Griffin v. State, 336 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Murphy v. State, 511 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- In the Interest of D. J. v. State, 330 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Lewis v. State, 570 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Cordero v. State, 589 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)