DERRICK JILES, 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.
Derrick Jiles appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana, challenging the sufficiency of evidence to establish constructive possession. The court affirmed, holding that marijuana visible in plain view in his vehicle door was sufficient to establish the knowledge element required for constructive possession.
The evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession. The plainly visible presence of marijuana in the vehicle door beside Jiles was sufficient to establish that Jiles knew of the presence of the marijuana, satisfying the knowledge element of constructive possession.
[1] To prove constructive possession of contraband, the state must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the contraband's presence and had the abilit…
[2] Mere proximity to contraband is insufficient to establish knowledge for constructive possession.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 contraband, the state must "show beyond a reasonable doubt that [1] the defendant knew of the presence of the contraband and [2] that he had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it."”
Establishes the two-element test for constructive possession that must be satisfied by the prosecution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarijuana was located in openings in the driver's door of a vehicle being driven by Jiles. Jiles owned the vehicle and had a passenger inside. When an…
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 Rational Trier Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
CANADY, Judge.
Derrick Jiles appeals his judgment for possession of marijuana. Jiles contends that the circuit court erred in denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.380(a) motion for judgment of acquittal, which was based on a claim that the evidence was insufficient to establish constructive possession by Jiles. For the reasons we explain, we affirm.
The evidence at trial established that the marijuana was located in openings in the driver’s door of a vehicle being driven by Jiles.
The evidence also showed that Jiles was the owner of the vehicle and that a passenger was in the vehicle with Jiles. According to the testimony of the officer who discovered the drugs, when the officer opened the driver’s door, the marijuana was visible in two baggies located in the openings in the door. In our de novo review of the circuit court’s ruling on the motion for judgment of acquittal, the jury’s determination that the evidence was sufficient can be overturned only if no “rational trier of fact” when “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State ... could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002).
To prove constructive possession of contraband, the state must “show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the presence of the contraband and that he had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it.” Wagner v. State, 950 So. 2d 511, 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Here, Jiles’s only properly presented argument is directed solely at the knowledge element of constructive possession. We will not consider an argument regarding dominion and control which was presented by Jiles for the first time in his reply brief. See Plichta v. Plichta, 899 So. 2d 1283, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
Although an inference that a defendant knew of the presence of contraband does not arise from the defendant’s “[m]ere proximity to [the] contraband,” Pena v. State, 465 So. 2d 1386, 1388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the location of contraband in plain view of the defendant is sufficient to establish the knowledge element of constructive possession, see Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983); see also Martoral v. State, 946 So. 2d 1240, 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding that knowledge element was established where “marijuana was in a compartment in the dash in plain view” of the defendant who was the driver of the truck).
Here, the plainly visible presence of the marijuana in the vehicle door beside Jiles was sufficient to establish that Jiles knew of the presence of the marijuana. This is not a case in which the drugs were concealed within a container. See J.M. v. State, 839 So. 2d 832, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Jiles relies principally on Hargrove v. State, 928 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and Cruz v. State, 744 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Hargrove is inapposite because the court there determined that the evidence was insufficient to support the dominion and control element of constructive possession. 928 So. 2d at 1256. Har-grove thus provides no guidance on the issue of knowledge. We are also not persuaded that Cruz supports Jiles’s position. Although Cruz might be read to suggest that the presence of contraband in plain view of a defendant is insufficient to establish the knowledge element of constructive possession, we conclude that such a reading is unwarranted. It is by no means clear from the brief analysis in Cruz that the court’s ruling turned on the absence of sufficient proof of the knowledge element.
We note that the sole authority cited in Cruz, 744 So. 2d at 569, was E.A.M. v. State, 684 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), a case in which the dominion and control element was decisive. Particularly in light of Brown, we decline to adopt a reading of Cruz that would support Jiles’s argument.
Because the evidence supported the conclusion that the marijuana was in plain view of Jiles, we reject Jiles’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to establish the knowledge element of constructive possession. Jiles’s judgment is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kahli Ubiles v. State, 23 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…session. See id. at 1243 (noting that the driver’s knowledge of marijuana in the vehicle could be inferred from evidence that the marijuana was in his line of sight); see also Duncan v. State, 986 So. 2d 653, 655 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Jiles v. State, 984 So. 2d 622, 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Moreover, because Ubiles owned and was driving the vehicle, and the marijuana was in plain view, it can also be inferred that he had dominion and control of the marijuana cigarettes in the ashtray. See Brown v. State, 428 S…
-
Jennings v. State, 124 So. 3d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ine was in Jennings’ plain view from the driver’s seat. This fact alone is sufficient evidence of knowledge. Brown, v. State, 428 So. 2d [*263] 250, 252 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); Jiles v. State, 984 So. 2d 622, 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Martoral v. State, 946 So. 2d 1240, 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). This is not a case where officers found contraband concealed from the defendant. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 8 So. 3d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (Xanex in a j…
-
Sanders v. State, 210 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…g containing contraband and his “unusual” behavior. This court has repeatedly held that such evidence is insufficient. See Smith v. State, 123 So. 3d 656, 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Rangel v. State, 110 So. 3d 41, 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Jiles v. State, 984 So. 2d 622, 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Hargrove, 928 So. 2d at 1256; Cruz v. State, 744 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); E.A.M. v. State, 684 So. 2d 283, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Skelton v. State, 609 So. 2d 716, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Because the State faile…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002)
- Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1983)
- Mulder v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 946 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Johnson v. State, 899 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Graham v. Rutherford, 950 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Stephen D. Plichta, Jr., M.D. v. Plichta, 899 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Hargrove v. State, 928 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- E.A.M. v. State, 684 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Chastity Anne Cruz v. State, 744 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Toribio Pena v. State, 465 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)