Amato v. State, 73--1325
| Decision Date | 18 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--1325,73--1325 |
| Parties | Robert AMATO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lewis S. Kimler, Miami Beach, Manuel W. James, Key West, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Olian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ., and GOBBIE, EVELYN, Associate Judge.
This appeal stems from a jury conviction of felony possession of marijuana in the form of hashish, a resin extracted from the Cannabis Sativa, L. plant, commonly known as marijuana. Hashish, as the evidence brought out during the trial, is a concentrated form of marijuana.
We are concerned with two issues:
1. Whether there was sufficient, competent evidence to sustain the defendant's conviction of constructive possession of the contraband; and
2. Whether the trial judge should have reduced the charge to a misdemeanor possession, rather than that of a felony.
To meet the first issue, we must look to the evidence to determine whether the State proved its case or whether the trial court should have granted the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.
A review of the record discloses that around 11:00 P.M. Deputy Sheriffs Brown and Kincada, while on routine patrol in the Sombrero Beach area of Marathon, Florida, advised a large group of young people congregated around their cars to leave the area as it was off-limits during the evening hours. This area was a known gathering point in the evenings and was frequently checked by the deputies since they had had problems in the past.
The patrol car then drove toward U.S. Highway No. 1 and pulled off the road to see if the cars were clearing the forbidden area. They sat for fifteen to twenty minutes but observed no headlights coming out of the beach road. They saw headlights headed for an area of the beach known as the loop--an undeveloped, dirt road section. The deputies proceeded to investigate to see what was going on. They pulled into a 'turnaround' road and in so doing, observed a number of automobiles straight ahead, with one lone Chevrolet vehicle to the left of the patrol car about twenty-five feet away from the other automobiles. There was a group around the driver's seat of the Chevrolet, in which the young lady owner was sitting, and as soon as the group saw the marked car, they scattered rather quickly to their own cars and departed.
The deputies' car had blocked the Chevrolet to their left so that it could not get out. The defendant was seated in the passenger's seat and Deputy Brown testified that as he pulled into the area, the passenger door of the Chevrolet opened and closed rapidly. Deputy Kincada verified all of this but added further:
'. . . the interior light of the lone vehicle came on and caught my eye and the door opened and I just saw a flash of a head or something and the door closed again.'
Continuing, he stated:
The defendant, unable to produce any type of identification, was requested to get out of the car. Deputy Brown flashed his light into the automobile but found nothing. However, the light revealed a white paper bag on the ground, protruding approximately two to three inches from under the car, 'exactly at the passenger' side.' The white bag contained a fresh plant, later identified as Cannabis Sativa, L., commonly referred to as marijuana; on top of this white bag was a clear plastic one, also containing a fresh plant of Cannabis Sativa, L. On top of these two bags was a brown, leather pouch containing money, a hand-rolled marijuana cigarette and 31 cubes wrapped in tinfoil, later determined to be hashish.
The items were neatly stacked on top of each other, containing neither marks nor tire tracks and looking very clean on top. According to the evidence, they appeared to have been placed under the car, as opposed to having been thrown.
Two latent fingerprints were lifted from the cigarette paper and identified as those of the defendant. However, the chemist conceded that the prints could have been placed on the paper before the cigarette was rolled. Five other prints lifted from one of the paper bags failed to match the defendant's fingerprints.
Bearing in mind that with circumstantial evidence, such as we have in the case at bar, the test to be applied on review of a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is not whether, in the opinion of the trial court or the appellant court, the evidence fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt but, rather, whether the jury might reasonably so conclude. Vick v. United States, 216 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1954). The jury is the pivotal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andreasen v. State
...that the evidence, assuming all of it to be true, fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt. Amato v. State, 296 So.2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). The trial court's determination that there was sufficient evidence upon which a jury could find the defendant guilty is support......
-
Sorey v. State, 81-2465
...the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. In the Interest of G. B. S., 417 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Amato v. State, 296 So.2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Thus, in a case where fingerprint evidence is the sole evidence relied upon to establish the identity of the defendant as ......
-
McArthur v. Nourse
...Tillman v. State, 353 So.2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Richardson v. State, 335 So.2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Amato v. State, 296 So.2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).11 437 U.S. at 11, 98 S.Ct. at 2147. We specifically decline to rule upon the double jeopardy implications of appellate reversals bas......
-
Jackson v. State
...exclude[s] every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt but, rather, whether the jury might reasonably so conclude." Amato v. State, 296 So.2d 609, 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); see also Tsavaris v. State, 414 So.2d 1087, 1089 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Cochran v. State, 711 So.2d 1159, 1162 (Fla. 4th ......