K.L., 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.
K.L., a minor, was adjudicated delinquent for marijuana possession based on circumstantial evidence that he was near marijuana and admitted to "chipping in" on its purchase. The appellate court reversed, holding that the State failed to prove constructive possession because mere proximity to contraband and financial contribution are insufficient without proof of knowledge, awareness of illicit nature, and dominion or control.
The court reversed K.L.'s adjudication because the State failed to prove constructive possession. Mere proximity to contraband and financial contribution to its purchase are insufficient; the State must prove that the accused knew of the drug's presence, knew of its illicit nature, and had dominion or control over it.
[1] To establish constructive possession of contraband, the State must prove the accused knew of the presence of the drug, knew of its illicit nature, and had dominion or con…
[2] Mere presence in the vicinity of contraband, even with knowledge of its presence and illicit nature, is insufficient to establish constructive possession.
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“The fact that he "chipped in" on the purchase is insufficient, in and of itself, to establish constructive possession.”
Establishes that financial contribution alone cannot support a constructive possession charge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 7, 1999, police responded to a complaint of suspicious persons on utility company property and found eight persons, including K.L., gather…
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 Dominion And Control cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Chief Judge.
K.L. appeals from the trial court’s order which adjudicates him to be a delinquent child and imposes community control for possession of marijuana. He argues that the State failed to prove that he possessed marijuana. We agree and reverse.
On February 7, 1999, Officer See-ley of the Temple Terrace Police Department responded to a complaint of suspicious persons and vehicles on utility company property. He found eight persons, including K.L., gathered around or in the backseat of a car parked under some power lines. K.L. was standing near the driver’s side window. Another car was parked nearby. As Seeley approached, he smelled the strong odor of burnt marijuana. Backup units arrived, and police officers searched the persons and the cars. Marijuana was found on one individual, and a baggie containing seven grams of marijuana was found between the driver’s door and the driver’s seat of the vehicle nearest K.L. Seeley did not determine which individuals had been the occupants of either vehicle. After Seeley gave K.L. Miranda1 warnings, K.L. admitted that he had “chipped in” to purchase the marijuana but did not know who had made the purchase. K.L. made no further admissions.
At trial, the State offered no evidence that KL. was in actual possession of marijuana. The circumstances show that K.L. was in the vicinity of marijuana that someone else had purchased and nothing more. The fact that he “chipped in” on the purchase is insufficient, in and of itself, to establish constructive possession. When contraband is found in a common area, knowledge of the contraband and the accused’s ability to control it will not be inferred but must be proven. Skelton v. State, 609 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). To establish constructive possession, the State must prove that the accused knew of the presence of the drug, knew of the illicit nature of the drug and had dominion or control over it. Rogers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Because the State failed in its proof, the trial court erred in denying KL.’s motion for judgment of dismissal.
Reversed.
THREADGILL and BLUE, JJ., Concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.M. v. State, 818 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…its burden of proof in this constructive possession case, the State must have produced evidence to establish that C.M. knew of the presence of the marijuana, knew of its illicit nature, and had the ability to exercise control over it. K.L. v. State, 787 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The State maintains that C.M.’s knowledge of the contraband can be inferred from circumstantial evidence which established that Officer Jordan observed a marijuana cigar being thrown from a passenger window, that the car was fill…
-
M.D. v. State, 30 So. 3d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…th DCA 2002) (evidence insufficient where the defendant was a passenger in a car that smelled like marijuana, marijuana residue was found in the car, and a small marijuana cigar was found in an ashtray on the passenger’s [*653] door); K.L. v. State, 787 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (evidence insufficient where the State proved that the defendant was in the vicinity of the marijuana, an officer smelled a strong odor of burnt marijuana, marijuana was found on another individual and in a nearby vehicle, and the…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Rogers v. State, 586 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Skelton v. State, 609 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)