JUDY FAGGIONATO, 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.
The court held that mere presence in a vehicle where contraband is found is insufficient, by itself, to sustain a conviction for possession.
Appellant was the driver of a car stopped by officers who detected the odor of marijuana and found a bag of marijuana under the dashboard. Appellant w…
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 Felony Possession Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was found guilty of felony possession of marijuana and was placed on two years probation with certain county jail time and a fine. We reverse.
Appellant was the non-owner driver of a car stopped by officers as it left a construction site about 11:30 P.M. The occupants of the car were assembled by the detaining officers at the rear of the car for purposes of identification. Sergeant Oscar Perez of the Manatee County Sheriffs Department approached the car and detected the odor of marijuana in the car. He shined his flashlight in the car and saw a plastic bag of what proved to be marijuana under the dashboard on the transmission hump. There were ashes in the ashtray but these were not analyzed. There was no smoke and no “roaches” in the car. Appellant was tried jointly with the car’s owner, Blake Hunter, and a passenger, William Thiel. At the close of the state’s case, a directed verdict of acquittal was entered as to the owner, Hunter. The state’s case against appellant was, and had to be, predicated on “constructive” possession of the marijuana found. But in order to establish this, both knowledge of the contraband and the ability to control it or reduce it to appellant’s personal dominion had to be shown. Under the factual framework of this case the mere presence of appellant in another’s car in which was found the marijuana involved herein was a circumstance insufficient of itself to sustain the conviction.1
Accordingly, the order appealed from should be, and it is hereby, reversed; and the cause is remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.
McNULTY, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur. . See Taylor v. State (Fla.App.2nd, 1975), 319 So. 2d 114.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. State, 667 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…sessed it. See, e.g., Lewis, 570 So. 2d 346; A.S. v. State, 460 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Manning, 355 So. 2d 166; Hively v. State, 336 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); In Interest of D.J., 330 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Faggionato v. State, 329 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Nor was this evidence legally sufficient to exclude the reasonable hypothesis that the appellant’s brother, who had possession of the ear after he rented it with Ms. Barnes, and was noticeably more nervous than an ordinary passen…
Authorities Cited
- Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist. v. Deadwyler, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Odessa D. Taylor v. State, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)