DALLAS LEE JORDAN, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a marijuana possession conviction where the defendant did not have exclusive possession of the apartment, holding that knowledge of contraband cannot be inferred merely from shared occupancy of premises.
Knowledge of the presence of contraband cannot be inferred from the defendant's status as a resident of premises where he did not have exclusive possession or control.
[1] Knowledge of the presence of contraband cannot be inferred from a defendant's mere residence in premises where he does not have exclusive possession or control, and such…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“could well render unduly harsh results against a husband in altogether innocent circumstances”
Court's reasoning that inferring knowledge from household status is improper policy
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant was convicted of possessing five grams or less of marijuana discovered during a search of his apartment, which he shared with a female roomm…
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 Knowledge cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
This is an appeal by defendant from a conviction for the crime of possession of cannabis in the amount of five grams or less (marijuana). The contraband was discovered in a search of the defendant’s apartment, where he resided with a female roommate. Defendant argues that his conviction should be overturned because the State failed to show that he had knowledge of the presence of the narcotics or had control over them, as evidenced by the fact that he was not in exclusive possession of the premises.
We find that the conviction must be reversed on authority of Smith v. State, 279 So. 2d 27 (Fla.1973), where, in a similar fact pattern, the Florida Supreme Court held that a ruling that the required knowledge of the presence of contraband can be inferred to the husband as “head of the household” is not a good policy as it “. could well render unduly harsh results against a husband in altogether innocent circumstances.” The Supreme Court also noted that “[a] couple living together without benefit of clergy under the same situation would apparently enjoy the advantage of a different result, requiring direct evidence of knowledge; such a rule would penalize those who follow the legal requirements of marriage.” See also Silva v. State, 344 So. 2d 559 (Fla.1977).
Reversed with directions to discharge the defendant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 412 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…fendant’s presence; Ellis v. State, 346 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Defendant was owner of premises but out of town during search. Illegal drugs found in kitchen which was easily accessible to all persons entering the premises; Jordan v. State, 344 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Marijuana found in apartment in which defendant resided with female roommate; Britton v. State, 336 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). This is the “plain smell” case in which the odor of marijuana emanated from a trailer in which de…
Authorities Cited
- Silva v. State, 344 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1977)
- Smith v. State, 279 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1973)