RICHARD MANNING, 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.
Richard Manning was arrested for marijuana possession based on drugs found in a vehicle in which he was sitting as the driver among four companions. The court reversed his conviction, holding that joint possession of a vehicle combined with non-exclusive access to the location of the drugs does not establish a prima facie case of possession without additional evidence of knowledge.
The court held that the facts did not make out a prima facie case of possession. Where premises are in joint, rather than exclusive, possession, knowledge of the presence of drugs must be established by evidence other than mere non-exclusive possession. The defendant's position as driver in a jointly occupied vehicle containing drugs in an accessible location does not establish knowledge of the drugs' presence.
[1] Knowledge of the presence of drugs will not be inferred from non-exclusive possession of premises where drugs are seized; such knowledge must be established by other evid…
[2] The mere fact that a defendant was in the driver's seat of a jointly occupied vehicle in which drugs are found is insufficient to allow a jury to find guilt for possessio…
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“If the premises on which drugs are seized are not in exclusive, but only joint possession of the accused, knowledge of the presence of drugs will not be inferred but must be established by other evidence.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that joint possession requires proof of knowledge beyond possession itself
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManning was arrested while sitting in the driver's seat of a parked automobile under police surveillance. Four other companions were also in the vehic…
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 From Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The question here is whether the facts made out a prima facie case against the appellant who pled nolo contendere reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. We say no and reverse.
The appellant was charged with actual or constructive possession of marijuana based on the undisputed facts of his arrest. The appellant was arrested upon entering, and sitting behind the wheel of, a parked automobile (which the police had under surveillance) with four other companions. A search of the vehicle revealed 2V2 ounces of marijuana in the unlocked center console.
If the premises on which drugs are seized are not in exclusive, but only joint possession of the accused, knowledge of the presence of drugs will not be inferred but must be established by other evidence. By other evidence we mean evidence other than the evidence of the accused’s non-exclusive possession of the premises. Medlin v. State, 279 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). No such “other evidence” was presented here.
Appellant, in our view, had only joint possession and control over the automobile, Hively v. State, 336 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Thomas v. State, 297 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); cf. Russ v. State, 279 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), and there was no direct evidence that he knew the marijuana was in the unlocked center console, to which the other passengers had equal access. See Nogar v. State, 277 So. 2d 257 (Fla., 1973).
The mere fact that appellant was in the driver’s seat of a jointly occupied vehicle in which drugs are found would not be sufficient to allow a jury to find him guilty of the offense charged. Thomas v. State, 297 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Hively v. State, 336 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
In Hively, supra, marijuana was found in a pipe lying on the center console of a vehicle driven by defendant with one Leslie Bardon in the passenger seat. Notwithstanding the fact that appellant had borrowed the automobile to take Bardon home, this court held that a jury issue was not created as to defendant’s knowledge of the presence of marijuana in the automobile.
We note that there was no showing as to who owned the automobile in the instant case, but we are of the opinion that proof of appellant’s ownership of the vehicle would not have cured the defect in the case at bar. Cases involving ownership combined with joint possession are sparse. The Nogar, supra, case dealt with a distinguishable factual situation where the passenger claimed ownership of the drugs. In Russ v. State, 279 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), a defendant-owner’s conviction for possession of drugs found under the dash board was affirmed, but he was alone at the time of his arrest (he argued that the car had been used earlier by another person).
See also Zicca v. State, 232 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
The courts in Florida have implied in similar, although factually distinguishable situations, that mere proof of ownership alone, does not infer knowledge of the presence of contraband. Ellis v. State, 346 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Tomlin v. State, 333 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Medlin v. State, supra. One case outside this jurisdiction is Commonwealth v. Wisor, 466 Pa. 527, 353 A. 2d 817 (Penn.1976).
In Wisor, a defendant was charged with possessing marijuana in a pipe lying in the space between the front right passenger seat of a car occupied by six persons including defendant who was the owner-driver thereof. The court held that “the fact of ownership does not support the inference that appellant knew the pipe was under the seat.” Id at 818.
We agree.
In the light of all the foregoing, we cannot infer that the appellant was in actual or constructive possession of the marijuana.
REVERSED.
ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Murphy v. State, 511 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…edge of the presence of the contraband must be consistent with the accused’s guilt, inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. Harvey v. State, 390 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Manning v. State, 355 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), D.J. v. State, 330 So. 2d 35, 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Townsend v. State, 330 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). There is no evidence, other than appellant’s joint possession of the car for a short period of time that supports a fi…
-
Earle v. State, 745 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…there was a greater quantum of “independent proof’ of the accused’s guilty knowledge than exists in this case. See Thomas v. State, 743 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Gueits v. State, 566 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); McClain; Manning v. State, 355 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Green v. State, 667 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); S.B. v. State, 657 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Cordero v. State, 589 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Moffatt; King v. State, 556 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). For example…
-
Thomas v. State, 512 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…tzger v. State, 395 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981), where there were no circumstances necessarily pointing to the defendant’s knowledge of the presence of contraband stored below the deck of a boat on which he was a passenger, and Manning v. State, 355 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), where the defendant was sitting in the driver’s seat in an automobile with four others, and contraband was found in the unlocked center console next to his seat. In this case the only way the cocaine could have remained in the…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- van Griffin v. State, 336 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Ellis v. State, 346 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Thomas v. State, 297 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Copeland v. State, 232 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Medlin v. State, 279 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Russ v. State, 279 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Nogar v. State, 277 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1973)