DARLENE K. MOLINARO, 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.
The court held that the facts presented sufficient circumstances to infer knowledge and ability to control the controlled substance, thus establishing constructive possession.
[1] To establish constructive possession of contraband found in an area of joint, rather than exclusive, possession, the prosecution must prove the accused's knowledge of the…
[2] Knowledge of the presence of contraband in an area of joint possession may be established by circumstantial evidence from which the trier of fact can infer knowledge.
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 intelligenceDefendant was a passenger in a disabled vehicle where officers found controlled substance capsules on the floor and seat. Defendant appeared highly in…
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 Possession Of A Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
[*120] PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Darlene K. Molinaro, appeals her conviction1 for possession of a controlled substance, a barbituric acid derivative [Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1975)], and contends the trial court erred in denying her sworn motion to dismiss because the undisputed facts fail to show that she had actual .or constructive possession of the controlled substance. The relevant facts appear as follows:
Defendant was a passenger in a disabled vehicle which was parked alongside the road. Officer Smith testified that he observed the car, walked over to it and asked the driver and the defendant to produce identification; that both appeared highly intoxicated and he had to revive the defendant who was passed out on the passenger side of the front seat. He then noticed two blue and red capsules on the front passenger floorboard and another on the seat between defendant and the driver. Based upon this testimony, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, defendant entered a plea of nolo contendere and specifically preserved her right to appeal the denial.
If the premises on which drugs are found is not in the exclusive but only in the joint possession of the accused, then the prosecution in order to demonstrate constructive possession must prove knowledge on the part of the accused of the presence of the drugs on the premises and the ability to maintain control over them. See Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Harris v. State, 307 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). This requisite knowledge may be established by circumstances from which the trier of the fact might infer knowledge. See Markman v. State, 210 So. 2d 486, 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Hively v. State, 336 So. 2d 127, 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
The undisputed facts set out above presented sufficient circumstances from which the trial judge, the trier of the facts herein, could (and did) infer knowledge on the part of defendant. See Heineman v. State, 327 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
Affirmed.
. Adjudication of guilt was withheld.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
G.D. v. State, 497 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…sley v. State, 425 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (proof of accused’s knowledge of presence of drugs may consist of evidence and circumstances from which jury may infer requisite knowledge), rev. denied, 434 So. 2d 888 (Fla.1983); Molinaro v. State, 360 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (requisite knowledge of presence of drugs may be established by circumstances from which trier of fact might infer knowledge), cert. denied, 368 So. 2d 1371 (Fla.1979). For the foregoing reasons, the adjudication of delinquency i…
-
M. W. W. v. State, 389 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…ity to hide cannabis therein only 3 days before the search, without the appellant’s knowledge. Fourth, at the time of the search, the appellant appeared to be “very high.” The State argues that this indicates knowledge because in Molinaro v. State, 360 So. 2d 119 (Fla.3d DCA 1978) cert. den 368 So. 2d 1371 (Fla.1979), drugs were found on the seat of a car between the driver and passenger, and the fact that the passenger had passed out indicated that she knew of the drugs’ presence. 360 So. 2d at 120. However…
-
Cotera v. State, 369 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Heineman v. State, 327 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Hively v. State, 336 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), and Molinaro v. State, 360 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spataro v. State, 179 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- van Griffin v. State, 336 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Ira Dennis Markman v. State, 210 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Harris v. State, 307 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Heineman v. State, 327 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)