CHARLES HERBERT BRIGGS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contributing To The Delinquency Of A Minor cases and more on FLexlaw
After a non-jury trial, defendant-appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. On this appeal he urges the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment.
Evidence in a criminal prosecution for possession of marijuana must show that defendant had knowledge that the contraband was in his possession and control. Langdon v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 321; Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 117. In the instant case the evidence was sufficient to warrant a conclusion by the trier of fact that defendant knew of the presence of the narcotics and was able to exercise personal dominion over the contraband. This was sufficient to constitute unlawful possession. Zicca v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 414; Spataro v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 873.
After careful consideration of appellant’s other points on appeal, we find them to be without merit.
The judgment of conviction herein appealed is, therefore, affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Skold v. State, 263 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…o warrant the conclusion that defendant knew of the presence of the narcotics and that he had the ability to reduce it to his personal dominion, hence the unlawful possession within the meaning of F.S. § 398.03, F.S.A. Briggs v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 451, Third District Court of Appeal; Spataro v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 873. Intent to commit a felonious act, being a state of mind, is often not subject to direct proof and can only be inferred from the circumstances by the trier of fact. Jo…
-
Ramirez v. State, 386 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…session of the cocaine in the attaché case. Constructive possession is based upon knowledge of the presence of the drug coupled with ability to maintain or [*586] exercise control. Medlin v. State, 279 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Briggs v. State, 262 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Both elements must be proved. Facts which establish knowledge on the part of the defendant are: that defendant was driving in tandem with his brother’s car containing cocaine; the attaché case in the brother’s car contained defe…
Authorities Cited
- Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Langdon v. State, 235 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Copeland v. State, 232 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)