TOMMY L. HARRIS, 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.
Tommy Harris was convicted of unlawful possession of heroin found in a car he was driving but did not own. The Florida appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the state failed to prove Harris's knowledge or constructive possession of the drug based on circumstantial evidence that was consistent with innocence.
The court reversed Harris's conviction, holding that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient because it was consistent with Harris's innocence and did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt. When drugs are found in jointly possessed premises, knowledge and control must be proven by evidence rather than inferred.
[1] Where premises are not in the exclusive but only in the joint possession of the accused, knowledge of the drug's presence and the ability to control it must be establishe…
[2] Circumstantial evidence is insufficient for conviction if it is not consistent with guilt, inconsistent with innocence, and does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis e…
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“if the premises on which the drugs are found is not in the exclusive but only in the joint possession of the accused, knowledge of the drug's presence on the premises and the ability to maintain control over it by the accused will not be inferred but must be established by proof”
Establishes the legal standard for constructive possession in jointly-possessed spaces
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris was driving a car owned by passenger Smith when police stopped the vehicle for running a stop sign. Officers discovered a tin foil packet conta…
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 Unlawful Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
NATHAN, Judge.
The defendant appeals a conviction of unlawful possession of heroin entered after trial by the court without a jury, and a sentence of one year in the county stockade.
The record reflects that the defendant was the driver of a car which was owned by the only passenger, one Smith, who was sitting in the front seat with the defendant. When the car was stopped by the arresting officers for running a stop sign, one of the officers observed a tin foil packet on the floor of the car just inches from the driver’s side and he testified that he believed it contained a narcotic substance, which it did. The drug was not visible to the naked eye. The defendant testified in his own behalf that he had been driving the car for only a few minutes, that he did not know the heroin was in the car and that the car was owned by passenger Smith.
The thrust of the defendant’s appeal is that the state failed to prove actual or constructive possession of the heroin and, therefore, the evidence was .insufficient to warrant conviction.
It is well established that if the premises on which the drugs are found is not in the exclusive but only in the joint possession of the accused, knowledge of the drug’s presence on the premises and the ability to maintain control over it by the accused will not be inferred but must be established by proof. Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 117, 120; Markman v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 210 So. 2d 486, 487.1
The only evidence in this case with which the state could prove knowledge of the presence of the heroin packet would be the testimony of one of the officers that the packet was located approximately eight inches closer to the defendant than to the passenger, Smith. This is clearly circumstantial evidence, and in or der for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction, it must be “ . consistent with the accused’s guilt, inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.” Brown v. State, 1937, 127 Fla. 225, 172 So. 921; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So. 2d 423, 424; Gaetano v. State, Fla.App.1973, 273 So. 2d 84, 86; Whitehead v. State, Fla.App.1973, 273 So. 2d 146, 147-148.2
We are of the opinion that the facts sub judice are supportive of reasonable hypotheses of the defendant’s innocence and, for this reason, the conviction and sentence appealed hereby are reversed, with directions to discharge the appellant.3
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
. Accord, Langdon v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 321; Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1974, 297 So. 2d 850.
. Accord, Lockett v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 253; McGuire v. State, Fla.App.1974, 288 So. 2d 271.
. We are shortening the time for rehearing in this cause, and require that a petition for rehearing, if any, be filed within five (5) days of this opinion because of the short sentence which the appellant is now serving.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…y from a room previously leased by the defendant; defendant testified at trial that he moved out of the room in question, that he left the key in the house mailbox, and did not steal any property; grand larceny conviction reversed); Harris v. State, 307 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert, denied, 315 So. 2d 195 (FIa.1975) (state's evidence deemed insufficient to establish possession and guilty knowledge of heroin found in car jointly occupied by defendant and a companion; defendant gave exonerating trial tes…
-
Odessa D. Taylor v. State, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…on. Spataro v. State, Fla.App.2d 1965, 179 So. 2d 873. This will not be inferred but must be established by proof. Frank v. State, Fla.App.1st 1967, 199 So. 2d 117; Markman v. State, Fla.App.3d 1968, 210 So. 2d 486; Harris v. State, Fla.App.3d 1974, 307 So. 2d 218. The only evidence in the case sub judice with which the State could prove that Taylor could maintain control over the marijuana or had the ability to reduce it to her personal dominion was her proximity to it. This is circumstantial evidence. In o…
-
A.S. v. State, 460 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…after the drugs were discovered, was insufficient to support a finding that he was in constructive possession of the contraband. Johnson v. State, 456 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Wale v. State, 397 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Harris v. State, 307 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 315 So. 2d 195 (Fla.1975); see Lincoln v. State, 459 So. 2d 1030 (Fla.1984). Accordingly, the adjudication of delinquency under review, which was based on that determination, is Reversed.…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Johnnell Lockett v. State, 262 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Ira Dennis Markman v. State, 210 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Thomas v. State, 297 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Langdon v. State, 235 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Fayete Brown v. State, 127 Fla. 225 (Fla. 1937)
- Whitehead v. State, 273 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Miller v. State, 270 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Gaetano v. State, 273 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Land & Leisure, Inc. v. Fla. Power Corp., 288 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)