ARNOLD DOBY, 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.
Conviction for marijuana possession and contraband introduction reversed because the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the marijuana found in his wheelchair, where other inmates had access to it.
When contraband is found in premises not in the defendant's exclusive control, the State must prove the defendant knew of the contraband, and circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
[1] When contraband is found in premises not in the defendant's exclusive control, the State must prove the defendant's knowledge of the contraband, and circumstantial eviden…
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“When the premises on which contraband is found are not in the defendant's exclusive control the State must prove the defendant knew of the contraband.”
Establishing the legal standard for contraband possession when exclusive control is absent.
Doby, a prison inmate, was convicted after marijuana was found in his wheelchair upon his return from furlough. Other inmates had access to the wheelc…
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 Contraband cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge;
Appellant Doby, an inmate at Union Correctional Institute, was convicted of possession of marijuana and introduction of contraband into a state correctional facility after prison officers found envelopes of the drug secreted in his wheelchair upon Doby’s return from a furlough. Doby contends the evidence was insufficient to show he knew the marijuana was in his chair. We agree.
When the premises on which contraband is found are not in the defendant’s exclusive control the State must prove the defendant knew of the contraband. Rutskin v. State, 260 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). Doby’s uncontradicted testimony showed a number of other inmates often had access to the wheelchair out of his presence. The State’s own witnesses established that Doby would not have become aware of the envelopes simply by sitting in the chair. No direct evidence connected Doby to the envelopes. The evidence suggesting Doby knew of the marijuana is entirely circumstantial, and that evidence also reasonably supports an inference that Doby was unaware of it. To support a conviction circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1956). The trial court should have granted Doby’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
REVERSED.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996)…trolled substance under-section 893.13(l)(f) is equally applicable to section 893.147. .Numerous subsequent district court opinions, including Camp v. State, 293 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert, denied, 302 So. 2d 413 (Fla.1974), and Doby v. State, 352 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), have held that knowledge of the presence of narcotic drugs is an essential element of possession charges. This Court denied certiorari in Camp after Medlin had been decided. ' A number of cases involving other simple possession…
-
State v. OXX, 417 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…y, who were not bound to believe the appellant. . See, e.g., Williams v. State, 413 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); State v. Craig, 413 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Wale v. State, 397 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). . See, e.g., Doby v. State, 352 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). . Although the appellant filed a 3.190(c)(4) motion alleging he had no knowledge of his possession of the controlled substance, appellant’s knowledge of the possession can be inferred from the act of actual possession. Since kn…
-
Jackson v. State, 995 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…be carried in a larger purse and would not be suitable for carrying in a man’s pocket. These circumstances are all inconsistent with Jackson’s theory of events. Jackson relies on Cook v. State, 571 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and Doby v. State, 352 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), both of which held that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction based on constructive possession of contraband. His reliance is unwarranted. Both Cook and Doby turned on the state’s failure to adduce any evidence t…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hoyt Dan Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1956)
- Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Rutskin v. State, 260 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)