JAKE WATSON, 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.
Jake Watson was convicted of possession with intent to sell cocaine found in his grandmother's apartment bedroom. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, holding that the state failed to prove Watson possessed the cocaine or had control over the bedroom where it was found, as he was merely a visitor who was asleep when police discovered the drugs.
The conviction is reversed because the state failed to prove Watson possessed the cocaine. A visitor to a bedroom occupied by another cannot be convicted of possession of drugs found there unless there is evidence the visitor had dominion and control over the drugs or the premises.
[1] Possession of illegal drugs requires proof of dominion and control over the premises where the drugs are found, or dominion and control over the drugs themselves.
[2] A defendant cannot be convicted of drug possession solely based on their presence in a room where drugs are found if they are merely a visitor without control over the pr…
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 state, in order to prove constructive possession under these facts, had to demonstrate that he had control or dominion over the room”
Establishes the legal standard the state must meet to prove constructive possession in this context
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolice executed a warrant and entered a bedroom in the grandmother's apartment where they found Watson lying on a bed and his cousin standing near a d…
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 Possession Of Cocaine With Intent To Sell cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant was convicted of possession with intent to sell cocaine. We reverse because the state failed to prove that he possessed the cocaine, which was found in a bedroom in which he was present.
After obtaining a warrant, the police entered the bedroom of an apartment of appellant’s grandmother. The officers, when they entered the bedroom, observed the appellant lying on a bed. Appellant’s cousin was standing next to a dresser. They found crack cocaine on top of the dresser and in a dresser drawer. Appellant’s cousin pled guilty to possessing the cocaine with intent to sell. At appellant’s trial, the cousin testified that only he lived in the bedroom, and that he had placed the drugs on the dresser and in the drawer while appellant was sleeping in one of the two beds in the bedroom. He further testified that that appellant was asleep when the police entered the bedroom and that appellant was not aware of the drugs.
The grandmother testified that the cousin lived in the bedroom, but that the appellant did not, although he was a frequent visitor. She saw him asleep in the bedroom when the police entered. There was no evidence that the appellant lived in the bedroom, had control of it, or was aware of the presence of illegal drugs.
Appellant correctly argues that the state, in order to prove constructive possession under these facts, had to demonstrate that he had control or dominion over the room, citing Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1983). Although Brown is distinguishable on its facts, Brown cited with approval Taylor v. State, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), in which it was held that a defendant who did not have control or joint control of the premises, but was only a visitor, could not be convicted of possession, unless there was evidence of control over the drugs. Similarly, in Brooks v. State, 501 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), wfe held that a visitor in a bedroom occupied by another could not be guilty of possession of drugs unless there was evidence that the visitor had dominion and control over the drugs.
The state does not disagree with these cases, but contends that the jury could have found from the evidence that the appellant was more than a visitor, emphasizing that it was his grandmother’s apartment, that he was there almost every day, and he was sleeping in one of the beds. We disagree that this evidence was sufficient and accordingly reverse the conviction.
WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grandison v. State, 926 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ented at trial was insufficient to prove his actual dr constructive possession of the contraband, the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. See Hill v. State, 736 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also Watson v. State, 877 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Cruz v. State, 744 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Agee v. State, 522 [*448] So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We accordingly reverse the appellant’s convictions and remand this case with directions that he be discharged. ALLEN,…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1983)
- Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist. v. Deadwyler, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Odessa D. Taylor v. State, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Epta Brooks and Daphne Mollisom v. State, 501 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)