ADOLPHUS 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.
Walker was convicted of three counts of violating Florida lottery laws based on circumstantial evidence of lottery tickets and paraphernalia found on premises where he resided with others. The appellate court reversed, finding the state failed to establish a prima facie case of possession where the defendant lacked exclusive control of the premises.
The state failed to make a prima facie case and the motion for directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted. Where contraband is found on premises in joint possession, the proof must establish both the accused's knowledge of the contraband's presence and his ability to maintain control over it; mere presence on premises where contraband is found is insufficient without evidence of exclusive possession or incriminating circumstances from which knowledge can be inferred.
[1] A prima facie case for possession of contraband is not established when the premises where the contraband is found are not in the exclusive possession and control of the…
[2] Where contraband is found on premises in joint possession, proof must establish both the accused's knowledge of the contraband's presence and his ability to maintain cont…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 contraband is found on premises in joint possession the proof must establish both the accused's knowledge of the contraband's presence and his ability to maintain control over it.”
Establishes the legal standard for constructive possession in joint occupancy situations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLottery tickets and paraphernalia were found on premises occupied jointly by defendant and other persons. The contraband was discovered in rooms other…
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 Violation Of Lottery Laws cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted of three counts charging him with violation of the lottery laws. Defendant contends that the court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict of acquittal. Based upon our review of the evidence in the record we are of the opinion that the state failed to make a prima facie case and the motion for directed verdict should have been granted.
The state’s evidence of possession of lottery tickets, lottery paraphernalia and assisting in the conduct of a lottery was circumstantial arid based on the fact that defendant resided on the premises wherein the contraband was found. The evidence revealed that other persons, in addition to the defendant, occupied the subject premises and that such premises was not in the exclusive possession and control of the accused.1
Where contraband is found on premises in joint possession the proof must establish both the accused’s knowledge of the contraband’s presence and his ability to maintain control over it. Smith v. State, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 91. The proof may consist of either actual knowledge or evidence of incriminating circumstances from which a jury could infer knowledge by the accused of the presence of contraband on the premises; merely having been present or being present where such contraband is found is not sufficient proof of possession where there is no exclusive possession of the premises. Smith v. State, supra; Medlin v. State, Fla.App.1973, 279 So. 2d 41; Arant v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So. 2d 515; Markman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 486; Kirtley v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 282; Torres v. State, Fla.App.1971, 253 So. 2d 450; Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 117. See also, Miller v. State, Fla.App.1964, 170 So. 2d 319; compare with Lattimore v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 771.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence herein is vacated and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to discharge the defendant.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., and SMITH, CULVER, Associate Judge, concur. . The testimony is unrefuted that the items seized came from rooms other than the bedroom which defendant claimed he had rented.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Arant v. State, 256 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Ira Dennis Markman v. State, 210 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Medlin v. State, 279 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- McKEE v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 245 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Smith v. State, 276 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Torres v. State, 253 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Amos H. Miller and Doris Miller v. State, 170 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Lattimore v. State, 214 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)