MICHAEL COLLINS, 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.
Michael Collins was convicted of cocaine trafficking after police executing a search warrant found cocaine-containing clothing near a window where Collins was found naked. Collins appealed challenging the sufficiency of evidence of his possession and knowledge of the cocaine, the denial of surveillance tapes, and admission of a nude photograph, but the court affirmed his conviction.
The court affirmed the conviction, holding that: (1) Collins failed to demonstrate a need for the confidential informant surveillance tapes under Roviaro standards; (2) circumstantial evidence adequately proved constructive possession and knowledge, as the cocaine was found in clothing directly on top of shorts containing Collins' identification and he was found naked immediately outside the window; and (3) the nude photograph was material and not unduly prejudicial as it supported the State's theory that Collins discarded his clothes and fled through the window.
[1] Proof of the quantity of cocaine involved in a trafficking charge may be established by testing a representative sample of commingled substances.
[2] Possession and knowledge of the substance's nature may be proven by circumstantial evidence.
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“each of these elements may be proved by circumstantial evidence”
Establishes that constructive possession and knowledge of the cocaine need not be proven directly, supporting the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence presented.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring execution of a search warrant on a Brevard County residence, police found Collins lying naked on the ground below a window covered partially wi…
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 Confidential Informant Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
While executing a search warrant on a residence in Brevard County, the police observed a male lying completely naked on the ground below a window, the bottom half of which was covered with cardboard that appeared only “partially in place.” A picture was taken of this person, who turned out to be Collins. A search of the room behind the window revealed clothing containing several packets of cocaine. Marijuana was also found in the room and U.S. currency was found in the closet of that room. A small firearm was located on the shelf. Inside the clothing an identification card with Appellant’s name was discovered.
Collins was convicted of trafficking in cocaine. He appeals claiming the court erred in not requiring the State to produce copies of its surveillance tapes taken in preparation for obtaining the search warrant; in failing to prove that at least 28 grams of cocaine were involved and that he constructively possessed the cocaine or knew the substance was cocaine; and in the admission into evidence of the picture of his naked body. We affirm.
The officers discovered 30 to 40 small bags containing what appeared to be crack cocaine. The contents of these bags were commingled into a single bag and transported to the lab for testing. The lab analyst testified that she randomly tested the rocks of suspected cocaine and found 196.5 grams of cocaine. This is adequate proof. See Bond v. State, 538 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Collins contends that since the packets of cocaine were found in a shirt which was found with the shorts containing his identification card, and not in the shorts, there was insufficient evidence connecting him to the cocaine or to show that he knew the substance was cocaine. But each of these elements may be proved by circumstantial evidence. See Anderson v. State, 624 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Here, the jury considered the fact that the shirt was sitting directly on top of matching shorts containing Collins’ identification and the fact that Collins was lying naked immediately outside the window of the bedroom in which these clothes were found and determined that he knowingly possessed the cocaine in his clothes. We believe the evidence justifies this finding.
Collins failed to demonstrate a need for the confidential informant surveillance tapes. See Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). There is no showing in this record as to why Collins needs to know the identity of the informant or the contents of his communication. We affirm the court’s ruling on the surveillance tapes.
We also agree that the nude photograph of Collins was material and not unduly prejudicial. The photograph supported the State’s claim that Collins knew the police were coming in and discarded his clothes and departed through the window. The fact that it was not unduly prejudicial is shown by the jury’s acquittal on a companion charge.
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baron Greenwade v. State, 124 So. 3d 215 (Fla. 2013)…bles pills than powder. Asmer v. State, 416 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Asmer and Ross approve the random testing of commingled pills. Thus, we hold that Ross does not mandate the testing of each rock of cocaine. Id.; see also Collins v. State, 717 So. 2d 186, 187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (upholding a conviction for trafficking in cocaine where a lab analyst randomly tested a single bag of crack cocaine that was filled with the commingled contents of thirty to forty individual packets). In Pama v. State, cus…
-
Lyons v. State, 807 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…der to have the amount in each container included in the total alleged amount of contraband. Ross v. State, 528 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). For rock, or crack cocaine, however, this rule against such commingling does not exist. Collins v. State, 717 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (sufficient evidence to support conviction for trafficking of at least 28 grams of cocaine where 30 to 40 bags of crack cocaine involving total quantity of 196.5 grams were commingled into single bag for testing at lab); Bond v.…
-
Armond Black v. State, 842 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…h DCA 2002) (evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of trafficking in cocaine in an amount in excess of 400 grams, even though two bags of cocaine totaling 813.4 grams were commingled before they tested positive for cocaine); Collins v. State, 717 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 729 So. 2d 917 (Fla.1999)(state provided adequate proof that defendant possessed at least 28 grams of cocaine; officers discovered 30 to 40 small bags containing what appeared to be crack cocaine, the contents were…
Authorities Cited
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1957)
- Bond v. State, 538 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Anderson v. State, 624 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)