T.W., A CHILD, 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.
T.W., a minor, was convicted of possession of cocaine residue found on a dollar bill in a car she was riding in as a passenger. The appellate court reversed because the state failed to present independent evidence proving T.W. had knowledge of the cocaine's presence, a required element for constructive possession.
The conviction must be reversed because the state failed to establish by independent proof that T.W. had knowledge of the cocaine residue's presence, which is a required element of constructive possession that cannot be inferred merely from the accused's presence in the vehicle.
[1] To prove constructive possession, the state must establish the accused's dominion and control over the contraband, the accused's knowledge of the contraband's presence, a…
[2] Knowledge of the presence of contraband in a constructive possession case cannot be inferred solely from the accused's presence; it must be established by independent pro…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 prove constructive possession, the state must prove three elements: (1) the accused's dominion and control over the contraband, (2) the accused's knowledge that the contraband is within his or her presence; and (3) the accused's knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband.”
Establishes the three-part test for constructive possession that the state must prove.
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 lawful traffic stop, a deputy found a folded dollar bill with cocaine residue in the space between the transmission hump and the side of the …
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 Of Illicit Nature cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
T.W. appeals her judgment of guilt of possession of a controlled substance. She contends that there was insufficient evidence to show she had constructive possession of the controlled substance. We agree and reverse.
According to the answer brief, the hearing was recorded on audiotape but could not be transcribed because it was unintelligible. Unfortunately, this is a common occurrence and is disturbing in this age of technology. The court and the attorneys therefore entered a “Stipulated Reconstruction of the Record” that provides: during a legal traffic stop, the driver/owner of the ear was found to have money and marijuana. The driver also dropped a small packet of cocaine near the car. T.W., the passenger, was found to have $900 in her pants and marijuana in her purse. (The trial court later suppressed the controlled substance found in her purse.) After an extensive search a deputy found a folded-up dollar bill which had cocaine residue on it. The bill was found in the space between the transmission hump and the side of the passenger seat of the auto in which T.W. had been riding. T.W. was found guilty of possession of this residue although no evidence existed indicating that it was hers or that she had knowledge of its presence.
Because the dollar bill was accessible to both occupants of the ear, this case must be analyzed as a constructive possession case. S.B. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). To prove constructive possession, the state must prove three elements: (1) the accused’s dominion and control over the contraband, (2) the accused’s knowledge that the contraband is within his or her presence; and (3) the accused’s knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband. Id. Knowledge of the contraband’s presence in a constructive possession case cannot be inferred from the accused’s presence but must be established by independent proof. In Interest of E.H., 579 So. 2d 364, 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
In the instant ease, independent proof of T.W.’s knowledge of the presence of the cocaine residue was not established; therefore, the court’s finding that T.W. was guilty of possession of a controlled substance must be reversed.
REVERSED.
PETERSON, C.J., W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Williams, 742 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…eat. Thus, the space immediately underneath or beside his body, where the contraband was found, was within his [*514] ready reach and exclusive personal control and access for purposes of the jury instruction on actual possession. Cf. T.W. v. State, 666 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); In Interest of E.H., 579 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (reversing adjudication of delinquency for possession of cocaine, where juvenile driver of vehicle with a passenger claimed not to know about rock of cocaine located betwee…
-
Ball v. State, 758 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…to control it cannot be inferred, but must be established by “independent proof.” Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1996); Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); T.W. v. State, 666 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); E.A.M. v. State, 684 So. 2d 283, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).1 It is frequently said that “[sjuch proof may consist either of evidence establishing that the accused had actual knowledge of the presence of the contraband, or of eviden…
-
M.M. v. State, 152 So. 3d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…tate must prove: “(1) the accused’s dominion and control over the contraband, (2) the accused’s knowledge that the contraband is within his or her presence, and (3) the accused’s knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband.” See T.W. v. State, 666 So. 2d 1001, 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (finding that T.W. did not have constructive possession of a controlled substance because the State did not present evidence indicating that it was hers or that she had knowledge of its presence). [*125] The record reflects…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- S.B. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- In the Interest of E.H., 579 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)