JERRY STEPHEN LINKS, 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.
Jerry Links was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia after police found pipes with methamphetamine residue in a company truck he was permitted to use. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed, finding insufficient evidence that Links knew of the contraband's presence, particularly where the truck was used by 8-15 other employees.
The court reversed Links' convictions because the State failed to present substantial, competent evidence that Links knew of the presence of the pipes. The only link between Links and the pipes was a court notice in the glove box from a hearing more than three weeks before the stop, which was insufficient to establish knowledge.
[1] To prove constructive possession of a controlled substance, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the presence of the contraband and w…
[2] A trial court errs in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal when the State fails to present substantial, competent evidence that the defendant knew of the presence o…
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“To prove constructive possession of a controlled substance, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the presence of the contraband and was able to exercise dominion and control over it.”
Establishes the legal standard for constructive possession that the trial court failed to apply properly.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeputy Angulo stopped Links for speeding on February 19, 2004. After obtaining consent to search, the deputy found two small glass pipes with methamph…
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 Over Contraband cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Jerry Links appeals his convictions and sentences pursuant to jury verdicts of possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. We reverse.
The evidence adduced at trial revealed that Deputy Angulo stopped Links for speeding on the night of February 19, 2004. Deputy Angulo asked Links if he had any illegal narcotics, stolen property, or weapons in the vehicle, and Links said he did not. The deputy then asked Links for permission to search the truck, and Links gave him consent to do so. Deputy Angulo found a pipe with methamphetamine residue in the glove box of the truck next to a court notice for Links to appear regarding a traffic violation. The notice was sent to Links on January 8, and the court date was January 27, which was more than three weeks prior to the stop. Links testified that the pipe was in a red rag, but the deputy testified that he could not remember whether there was a rag. Deputy Angulo found another pipe with methamphetamine residue in a toolbox located in the bed of the truck. Both pipes were very small clear glass tubes; they were not traditional tobacco pipes. The truck belonged to Links’ boss, who had given him permission to use it to visit a friend. The truck was a company truck, and the toolbox was also company property. They were both used by eight to fifteen other employees of the stucco company. Links’ and the deputy’s testimony conflicted over whether Links told Angulo that he was the primary user of the truck and the toolbox. Links testified that he did not know that the pipes were in the glove box and the toolbox, but the other employees could have left them in those locations. Deputy Angulo testified that Links did not appear to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
To prove constructive possession of a controlled substance, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the presence of the contraband and was able to exercise dominion and control over it. See Diaz v. State, 884 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance is no longer required. § 893.101, Fla. Stat. (2003). At the conclusion of the State’s case and at the conclusion of all the evidence, Links moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing that he had no knowledge of the presence of the contraband. The trial court erred in denying Links’ motions because the State failed to present substantial, competent evidence that Links knew of the presence of the pipes. The pipes were found in a company truck that was used by anywhere from eight to fifteen other employees. The only evidence connecting Links to the pipes was the court notice sent to him that was next to the pipe in the glove box. However, that notice was for a court date more than three weeks prior to the stop. The State presented no evidence of when Links put the notice in the glove box or whether the pipe was in the glove box when he did so and he knew of its presence. Accordingly, we reverse Links’ convictions.
Reversed.
ALTENBERND, J., Concurs.
KELLY, J., Concurs in result only. •
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jennings v. State, 124 So. 3d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…State must present competent, substantial evidence of the accused’s knowledge of the presence of contraband and his or her ability to exercise dominion and control over it. Reynolds v. State, 983 So. 2d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Links v. State, 927 So. 2d 241, 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). If the contraband is not located within the accused’s exclusive possession, the jury cannot infer the accused’s knowledge of and control over the contraband based upon proximity alone. Reynolds, 983 So. 2d at 1194. Instead,…
-
Reynolds v. State, 983 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…y fails. Under constructive possession, the State must prove that the defendant knew of the presence of the contraband and was able to exercise dominion and control over it. Person v. State, 950 So. 2d 1270, 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Links v. State, 927 So. 2d 241, 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). However, if the drugs are not located inside the accused’s exclusive possession, the State cannot infer his or her knowledge of the presence of and control over the drugs. Instead, the State must provide independent proof of…
-
Jarod J. Butera v. State, 58 So. 3d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ese alleged violations occurred, the evidence had to demonstrate (1) that the defendant knew of the presence of the contraband and (2) that he or she had the ability to maintain dominion and control over the controlled substance. See Links v. State, 927 So. 2d 241, 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). The State presented evidence of Butera’s proximity to the contraband. However, even in the context of a probation revocation proceeding, a defendant’s [*943] knowledge of the presence of contraband and ability to control it…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Diaz v. State, 884 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)