THOMAS LANGDON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Thomas Langdon was convicted of unlawful marijuana possession after marijuana was discovered on a bus he occupied with seven others. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because there was no evidence Langdon had knowledge of or control over the marijuana.
The court reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove Langdon's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When a defendant has joint control of premises where contraband is discovered, the evidence must show the defendant had knowledge that the contraband was present. The evidence against Langdon did not meet this test.
[1] A procedural error is not grounds for reversal if it was not prejudicial to the appellant.
[2] Evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction for unlawful possession of contraband when the evidence does not establish the defendant's knowledge o…
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“where the defendant has joint control of the premises where contraband is discovered the evidence must go further and show that the defendant had some knowledge that the contraband was on the premises”
Establishes the legal standard for possession cases involving shared control of premises
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Langdon was one of eight occupants of a bus in which an investigating officer discovered a small quantity of marijuana. Langdon was tried 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 Unlawful Possession Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was adjudged guilty of the unlawful possession of marijuana, and this appeal is from that conviction.
One of the two points upon appeal urges a procedural error. Our review of the record convinces us that the claimed procedural error was not prejudicial to the appellant. Therefore we do not further consider the point. See Jeffcoat v. State, 103 Fla. 466, 138 So. 385, 388 (1931).
The second point urges that the evidence is insufficient to establish that appellant was guilty of the crime as a matter of law. We agree and reverse.
The appellant was one of eight occupants of a bus in which the investigating officer discovered a small quantity of marijuana. Appellant was tried with four others who were arrested at the same time. The trial judge directed a verdict as to three of the five. The record reveals no difference as to the evidence concerning the appellant and the defendants receiving directed verdicts except that appellant admitted he and three others lived in the bus. Appellant did not own the bus.
Appellant relies upon Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 117, and Markmam v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 486, for reversal. These cases stand for the rule that where the defendant has joint control of the premises where contraband is discovered the evidence must go further and show that the defendant had some knowledge that the contraband was on the premises. The evidence against the appellant does not meet this test.
The state relies upon this court’s decision in Zicca v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 414, for affirmance. We think the cases are clearly distinguishable. In the Zicca case this court held that the trier of fact could have found the defendant had knowledge the marijuana was in the bus because: (1) the marijuana was in open view in a plastic container; (2) the defendant was *322the owner and the operator of the bus at the time of the arrest.
The instant record contains no evidence from which the trier of fact could determine that the appellant had possession or control of the marijuana. The evidence is not only subject to the hypothesis of appellant’s guilt but is also subject to the equally reasonable hypothesis of his innocence in that the marijuana was in the possession of one of the co-defendants.
Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Arant v. State, 256 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…on of the premises by the defendant, these elements may be inferred. But where the possession of the premises is joint, these elements must be proved by affirmative evidence. Such was our holding in Frank, supra. To like effect see Langdon v. State, 235 So. 2d 321 (Fla.App.1970), where the court held that evidence of joint possession of premises in which marijuana was found is “not only subject to the hypothesis of appellant’s guilt but is also subject to the equally reasonable hypothesis of his innocence in…
-
Reis v. State, 248 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…her Fourth Amendment rights under the Federal Constitution were violated. Under the claim of insufficiency of evidence Reis asserts the state failed to prove that she “knowingly” had marijuana in her possession. See Langdon v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 321; Chariott v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 359; Markman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 486; and Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 117. In Frank, supra, it was held that proof of knowledge in such cases might consist of “evidence of inc…
-
Harris v. State, 307 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…hypotheses of the defendant’s innocence and, for this reason, the conviction and sentence appealed hereby are reversed, with directions to discharge the appellant.3 Reversed and remanded, with directions. . Accord, Langdon v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 321; Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1974, 297 So. 2d 850. . Accord, Lockett v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 253; McGuire v. State, Fla.App.1974, 288 So. 2d 271. . We are shortening the time for rehearing in this cause, and require that a petition for reh…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Elvin E. Jeffcoat v. State, 103 Fla. 466 (Fla. 1931)
- Ira Dennis Markman v. State, 210 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Copeland v. State, 232 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)