LAWRENCE LEE SMITH, 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.
Lawrence Smith appeals his conviction for possession of stolen property and dangerous drugs. The court affirmed his conviction, rejecting his argument that possession was not established because his wife also occupied the bedroom and the state failed to prove he knew the stickers were stolen.
The court held that possession was sufficiently established despite joint occupancy of the bedroom with his wife because Smith, as the head of household, had actual and constructive control over the bedroom, and the circumstances were sufficient to infer his knowledge of the incriminating evidence. The court also rejected his argument that he did not know the stickers were stolen as a matter of normal intelligence.
[1] Possession of contraband may be inferred from circumstances that buttress an inference of knowledge and control, even when the premises are not exclusively occupied by th…
[2] A defendant who proceeds with his case after a motion for acquittal without awaiting a ruling is deemed to have treated the motion as denied.
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“The fact that the motor vehicle inspection stickers were stolen should have been known to appellant as a person of normal intelligence.”
Court's rationale for rejecting appellant's argument that he did not know the stickers were stolen
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers executed a search warrant at Smith's residence and discovered motor vehicle inspection forms corresponding to stolen stickers from an Alachua…
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 Knowledge Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from a final judgment of guilty entered pursuant to a jury verdict.
It appears that a search warrant was issued against the appellant to search his dwelling for stolen property and certain dangerous drugs and narcotic drugs. Motion to suppress the evidence or the search warrant was denied, and such ruling is not assigned as error on this appeal.
In execution of the search warrant, the officers found certain motor vehicle inspection forms which corresponded to the numerical sequence of such stickers which had been stolen at an inspection station in Alachua County, Florida. Also, in a dresser drawer in the bedroom of the house of appellant in which the appellant and his wife slept, was found several plastic containers of assorted pills, which upon analysis by the Florida State Board of Health, proved to be codeine, amphetamines and certain harmless antibiotics.
Appellant contends that the State failed to establish possession by the appellant in that he was not in sole possession, to wit: his wife occupied the bedroom also, and that the State had not established that appellant knew the stickers were stolen. We cannot agree with appellant. The fact that the motor vehicle inspection stickers were stolen should have been known to appellant as a person of normal intelligence. The fact that the wife of appellant occupied the bedroom with the appellant does not bring this case within the cases cited by appellant wherein the usual joint occupancy of premises requires proof of possession. In Frank v. State, 199 So.2d 117 (1967), this Court cited with approval Evans v. United States, 257 F.2d 121 (9th Cir., 1958), wherein we find this statement:
“ ‘ “ . . . But [where the accused has not been] in exclusive possession of the premises, it may not be inferred that he knew of the presence of the narcotics and had control of them, unless there are other incriminating statements or circumstances tending to buttress such an inference.” . . . ’ ” (Emphasis supplied.)
In the case sub judice, the appellant was assumed to be the head of the household and certainly he had control, actual as well as constructively, and the fact that only his wife and he were the occupants of the room, are circumstances which we think are sufficient to buttress an inference that the appellant had knowledge of the incriminating evidence.
When the appellant proceeded with his case without requiring the court to rule on his motion of acquittal, he had treated the said motion as denied, and we think this was a correct assumption. No error was committed in this respect.
The remaining point on appeal is without merit.
*540For the reasons cited, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 279 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1973)…p.2d 1965) ; and Markman v. State, 210 So. 2d 486 (Fla.App.3d 1968). These cases are in accord with the joint occupancy rule appearing in Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla.App.1st 1967). The conflict arises from the First District’s ruling here at 265 So. 2d 538 (Fla.App., 1972), which would create an exception to the general rule of joint occupancy requiring direct evidence of defendant’s knowledge of the contraband upon the premises which cannot be inferred, absent the defendant’s exclusive possession or…
-
Sonny Marshall and Silvia P. Hanson v. State, 321 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…is the better procedure to rule immediately on such a motion, it is not reversible error to proceed as the learned trial judge did sub ju-dice. When no objection is made, the defendant treats the motion as denied. (Smith v. State, Fla.App. 1st 1972, 265 So. 2d 538, 539; quashed on other grounds, Sup.Ct.Fla.1973, 279 So. 2d 27) Here, no objection was raised, and no motion was made to require the court to rule on the motion of acquittal. Having found that the able and learned trial judge committed no reversibl…
-
State v. Albertson, 280 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
Authorities Cited
- Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Evans v. United States, 257 F.2d 121 (9th Cir. 1958)