E.A.M., A MINOR, 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.
E.A.M., a minor, appealed his adjudication for cannabis possession, arguing the state failed to prove constructive possession. The court agreed, finding insufficient evidence that E.A.M. had dominion and control over marijuana found in a vehicle where he was a passenger, and reversed the adjudication.
The court held that the state failed to establish constructive possession because although E.A.M. may have had knowledge of the marijuana based on witnessing the transaction, there was no evidence proving he had dominion and control over the drug. In a jointly-occupied vehicle, knowledge and ability to control contraband cannot be inferred but must be established by independent proof.
[1] Possession of cocaine requires proof that the defendant possessed the substance, that the substance was cocaine, and that the defendant had knowledge of its presence.
[2] Actual possession of contraband exists when it is in the defendant's hand, on their person, in a container on their person, or within their ready reach and under their co…
Previewing 2 of 6 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, the state must prove that the defendant "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 intelligenceOn March 7, 1994, Tampa police observed a white female driver with three black male passengers pull up to an intersection where a known drug dealer co…
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 Contraband cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
E.A.M. appeals from an order of adjudication and disposition for possession of cannabis and argues that the state did not prove that he was in constructive possession of the marijuana. We agree and reverse.
On March 7, 1994, at 9:00 a.m., Tampa police officers were conducting “drug sale surveillance” in the area of 24th Street and Lake Avenue. Officer Collins saw a white female pull up to the intersection in a Suzuki jeep with three black male passengers. According to Officer Collins, the driver motioned to a known drug seller at the intersection. The known dealer walked over to the front passenger side of the jeep. A hand-to-hand transaction of currency for marijuana occurred between the dealer and the front-seat passenger. The jeep then drove off.
Officer Henry pulled the jeep over after following it for about one mile. The driver was asked to step out of the car first. Next, the front-seat passenger was asked to exit. The back-seat passengers were removed from the jeep individually, and E.A.M., who was seated in the right rear, was the third person to exit the jeep.
Officer Henry had E.A.M. walk to the rear of the jeep. Henry patted him down, and asked him if he had any marijuana, to which E.A.M. replied no. When Officer Henry looked in the back of the jeep, he noticed a couple of school books, a book bag on the seat, and in plain view a baggie of marijuana on the floorboard of the right rear of the car up by the front seat. Officer Henry did not see any marijuana on the floorboard at the time E.A.M. was asked to get out of the car, but the officer testified that it could have been obscured by E.A.M.’s feet.
E.A.M. correctly contends that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal because the state failed to prove that E.A.M. was in constructive possession of the marijuana. To establish constructive possession, the state must prove that the defendant “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.” Skelton v. State, 609 So. 2d 716, 716-17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Here, the police found a baggie of marijuana on the right-rear floorboard, very near the front seat. E.A.M., who had been sitting in the right-rear passenger seat, was the third of four persons to exit the jeep. E.A.M.’s theory of defense was that the baggie belonged to the front-seat passenger or the other back-seat passenger who was the last to get out of the jeep. In the case of a jointly-occupied vehicle, knowledge and ability to control the contraband may not be inferred, but must be established by independent proof. Green v. State, 667 So. 2d 208, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). While the state may argue that E.A.M. had knowledge of the marijuana based on the transaction between the street dealer and the front-seat passenger, there is no evidence that E.A.M. had dominion and control over the marijuana. See Ras v. State, 610 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (while defendant knew of cocaine’s presence, insufficient evidence to prove he had dominion and control over it). Thus, we reverse E.A.M.’s order of adjudication and disposition for possession of marijuana.
Reversed.
THREADGILL, C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Isaac v. State, 730 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…CA 1990). To do so, the State was required to show that Isaac had dominion and control over the cocaine, was aware of its presence, and knew of its illicit nature. See Green v. State, 667 So. 2d 208, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); see also E.A.M. v. State, 684 So. 2d 283, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Mere proximity to contraband is not enough to establish dominion and control. See State v. Snyder, 635 So. 2d 1057, 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Rather, to prove dominion and control the evidence must establish the defendant’s…
-
Hargrove v. State, 928 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…proximity to the contraband in .a jointly-occupied vehicle; rather, the State must present independent proof of the defendant’s knowledge and ability to control the contraband. Cruz v. State, 744 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); E.A.M. v. State, 684 So. 2d 283, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Here, the State’s sole proof of Har-grove’s constructive possession was the pipe’s proximity to the seat that he had been occupying in the car. Even if we accept the State’s view of the evidence and its argument that Hargro…
-
K.A.K. v. State, 885 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…er occupants testified to disclaim knowledge or possession of those items. “In a case of a jointly-occupied vehicle, knowledge and ability to control the contraband may not be inferred, but must be established by independent proof.” E.A.M. v. State, 684 So. 2d 283, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). “This proof must consist either of actual knowledge of the contraband’s presence or evidence of incriminating statements and circumstances from which the jury reasonably might infer the accused’s actual knowledge of the pres…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Skelton v. State, 609 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- RAS v. State, 610 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Alton Hill v. State, 667 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Green v. State, 667 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)