JOHN MARSHALL SKOLD, 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.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish unlawful possession of narcotics.
[1] Evidence of a defendant's presence and actions in a restroom, coupled with the discovery of narcotics in the immediate vicinity where the defendant was observed kneeling,…
[2] Intent, as a state of mind, may be proven by circumstantial evidence and inferred by the trier of fact.
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 intelligencePolice officers observed two men kneeling in a public restroom, and upon their departure, found narcotics paraphernalia and suspected heroin where the…
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 Inference Of Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, John Marshall Skold, seeks review of the judgment and sentence of the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida, entered by the trial judge after appellant was found guilty in a non-jury trial of possession of heroin and narcotics paraphernalia.
The record reflects that two Dade County Public Safety officers observed defendant and another man through the open door of a public restroom kneeling on the restroom floor then get up and exit the building. Following this, the officer first to enter the restroom found a syringe on the floor. The other officer then entered the restroom and confiscated from the spot where the two men had been kneeling, matches and a spoon containing what he suspected to be heroin. There were no other people in the restroom and no one else within a radius of thirty to forty feet of the building.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in finding him guilty because the state failed to establish knowledge, custody or control of the contraband.
The evidence is sufficient to 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. Jones v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So.2d 285; Scott v. State, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 625. This court must assume that the trial judge believed the credible evidence most damaging to defendant and drew from the facts established, those reasonable guidelines resulting in conviction. Finding substantial evidence to support the trial judge’s finding of guilt, we are required to affirm. Tafero v. State, Fla.App.1969, 223 So.2d 564; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 913.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amato v. State, 296 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…the jury’s finding that the defendant knew of the presence of the contraband and had the ability to reduce it to his physical possession. Arant v. State (Fla.App.1972), 256 So. 2d 515; Markman v. State (Fla.App.1968), 210 So. 2d 486; Skold v. State, 263 So. 2d 627 (Fla.App.1972). Let us now turn to the second point on appeal — whether or not the Trial Judge should have reduced the charge to a misdemeanor possession of marijuana since the State failed to prove that the defendant possessed in excess of five gr…
-
Heineman v. State, 327 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…he contraband. Knowledge is an elusive quality. Like intent, since it is a state of mind, it is often not subject to direct proof and can [*899] only be inferred from the circumstances of the case by the trier of fact. Skold v. State, Fla.App.1972, 263 So. 2d 627; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 285; and Scott v. State, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 625. Where, as in the instant appeal, a case is tried nonjury before a judge his factual findings are entitled to the weight of a jury verdict. We must assum…1 / 2
-
Frierson v. State, 303 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…a.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 194; Shif-rin v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 18; Lister v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 226 So. 2d 238; Staten v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 697; Rollins v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 541; Skold v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 263 So. 2d 627; United States v. Cooper, 5th Cir. 1973, 472 F. 2d 64; § 924.-33, Fla.Stat.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Esaw Jones v. State, 192 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Tafero v. State, 223 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Scott v. State, 137 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Morena Williams v. State, 187 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Briggs v. State, 262 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)