K.C.B., APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the juvenile's mere presence in the apartment was insufficient to establish constructive possession of the cocaine.
A juvenile, fleeing police, was admitted into an apartment where officers later found cocaine and syringes. The juvenile was convicted of possession o…
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 Presence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, who was being chased by police, ran to an apartment for which he had no key. After knocking on the door, he was admitted into the apartment. Immediately thereafter, police officers entered and found the juvenile sitting in the apartment. Near the juvenile, police officers found a bag of cocaine on a table and some syringes behind a dresser. The juvenile was convicted of possession of cocaine.
Because the juvenile was not in actual possession of the cocaine, the State had to show he had “constructive possession.” The State had the burden to prove the juvenile 1) had dominion and control over the cocaine; 2) had knowledge that the cocaine was within his presence; and 3) had knowledge of the illicit nature of the cocaine. See Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983).
Where, as here, the juvenile does not own or occupy the premises, dominion and control can not be inferred, but must be established by independent evidence. See Id. The State failed to present independent evidence to establish that the juvenile had the ability to exercise dominion and control over the cocaine. Johnson v. State, 456 So. 2d 923, 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). The evidence establishes nothing more than mere presence, which is insufficient to establish that the juvenile was in constructive possession of the cocaine.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Midgette v. State, 152 So. 3d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…nt any showing that defendant moved it); Chamberland v. State, 429 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (holding inference not permitted though defendant watched roommate install stolen air conditioner in their shared apartment); see also K.C.B. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding defendant did not possess cocaine where merely sitting near cocaine in another’s apartment); cf. Holcomb v. State, 946 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding inference proper where defendant was driver of getaway truck c…
-
Waldron v. State, 979 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…by the accused, and that the possession was exclusive.” Bozeman v. State, 931 So. 2d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (affirming conviction for grand theft of a Chevrolet that was being pushed by a Mazda driven by defendant); see also KC.B. v. State, 715 So. 2d 1083, 1083-84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (finding insufficient evidence to support dominion and control element of constructive possession of contraband found in an apartment into which the defendant ran when he was chased by police, but for which he did not hav…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1983)
- Westley Johnson v. State, 456 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)