WILLIE WALKER, 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.
Willie Walker was convicted by jury of unlawful possession of thirty gallons of moonshine whiskey and sentenced to five years in prison. The appellate court reversed, finding insufficient evidence that Walker had any control, ownership, or constructive possession of the whiskey to sustain the conviction.
The conviction must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence that Walker had any control, ownership, or interest in the whiskey, nor was there evidence of constructive possession. Possession requires conscious and substantial possession by the accused, not mere involuntary or superficial possession.
[1] Possession of contraband requires evidence of personal charge, ownership, management, or control over the item.
[2] A conviction for unlawful possession of contraband cannot be sustained without legally sufficient evidence demonstrating the defendant's control, ownership, or interest i…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“There is no evidence in this record which, if believed by a jury, would be legally sufficient to sustain the verdict, judgment, and sentence here complained of.”
The court's finding that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn the night in question, 72-year-old Willie Walker was sitting in an automobile owned and operated by co-defendant Willie Malcolm Edwards. Edwards 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 Conscious And Substantial Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
The Appellant, Willie Walker, hereafter referred to as the Defendant, has perfected his appeal from the judgment and sentence imposed upon him by the trial court, based upon a jury verdict finding the Defendant *492guilty of the offense of unlawful possession "of thirty gallons of moonshine whiskey. The Defendant, age 72 years, was sentenced to serve a period of five years in the State prison. The Jury found the Co-defendant, Willie Malcolm Edwards, guilty of unlawful possession of less than one gallon of moonshine whiskey.
The record in this case reveals that on the night in question, Willie Walker was sitting in an automobile owned and operated by the Co-defendant, Willie Malcolm Edwards, at the time the officers came upon the arrest scene. Co-defendant Edwards and a person named Lamp, who fled the scene upon giving a flash light signal, were concerned with loading the sacks of whiskey into the trunk of Edwards’ car.
There is no evidence in this record which, if believed by a jury, would be legally sufficient to sustain the verdict, judgment, and sentence here complained of.
There is no evidence that this Defendant had any control, ownership, or interest in the whiskey. Neither is there any evidence that the same was ever in his constructive possession.
In the early case of Reynolds v. State, 92 Fla. 1038, 111 So. 285 (1927), the Supreme Court of Florida held:
“In offenses of this character, ‘possession’ is usually defined as having personal charge of or exercising the right of ownership, management, or control over the liquor in question. Terry v. State, 101 Tex.Cr.R. 267, 275 S.W. 837; Newton v. State, 94 Tex.Cr.R. 288, 250 S.W. 1036, 1037; Barnes v. State, 102 Tex. Cr.R. 155, 277 S.W. 647; Sizemore v. Comm., 202 Ky. 273, 259 S.W. 337. To constitute possession, there need not necessarily be an actually manucaption of the liquor, nor is it necessary that it be otherwise actually upon the person of the accused. State v. Aplin, 128 Wash. 36, 221 P. 989. There must, however, be a conscious and substantial possession by the accused, as distinguished from a mere involuntary or superficial possession.”
The judgment and sentence is reversed, with directions to discharge the Defendant.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powell v. State, 335 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…f which they have no knowledge. It is a safeguard which must be preserved in the interest of justice so that the constitutional rights of our citizens may be preserved. * * *” (199 So. 2d 120, 121) This Court, in Walker v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1971, 248 So. 2d 491, a moonshine case, quoting from an early Supreme Court of Florida case, Reynolds v. State, Sup.Ct. Fla.1927, 92 Fla. 1038, 111 So. 285, reversed, saying: “There is no evidence that this Defendant had any control, ownership, or interest in the whisk…
-
City of Rockledge v. Lester, 40 Fla. Supp. 70 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1974)…ass v. State, Fla. App. 1968, 214 So. 2d 653; Baker v. U. S. (8th Cir.) 395 F. 2d 368; 4 Cr. Law Bulletin 416; Williams v. State, Fla. App. 1968, 206 So. 2d 466; Anderson v. State, Fla. App. 1970, 241 So. 2d 183; and Walker v. State, Fla. App. 1971, 248 So. 2d 491. While in determining probable cause or a reasonable ground for belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused committed it, an officer can consider the facts and circumstances as a whole in view of his experience, nevertheless, he mus…
Authorities Cited
- Reynolds v. State, 111 So. 285 (Fla. 1926)