CM v. State, 2D00-3265.

Decision Date25 January 2002
Docket NumberNo. 2D00-3265.,2D00-3265.
Citation818 So.2d 554
PartiesC.M., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Bruce P. Taylor, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

STRINGER, Judge.

C.M. challenges a delinquency adjudication for possession of marijuana. We reverse because the State failed to produce sufficient evidence of constructive possession.

On December 6, 1999, Officer William Jordan of the Tampa Police Department was on patrol, traveling southbound on North Armenia Avenue. He was behind an Oldsmobile sedan, and when the driver of the Oldsmobile failed to stop at a stop sign, Officer Jordan activated his lights in order to initiate a traffic stop. Before the Oldsmobile came to a complete stop, Officer Jordan saw something "fly" from a passenger-side window. Officer Jordan could not tell whether the object came from the front or rear passenger-side window. Another officer subsequently retrieved a marijuana cigar1 believed to be the object thrown from the window, but none of the occupants of the car were charged with possession of the marijuana cigar because, in Officer Jordan's words, they "weren't able to decide who it belonged to."

When he approached the vehicle, Officer Jordan noted a smokey haze inside the car, accompanied by the strong scent of marijuana. C.M. was a passenger in the front seat, and there was another passenger seated in the rear. All three occupants were ordered out of the car and each smelled of marijuana. Upon searching the car, Officer Jordan found a baggie which contained what he believed to be marijuana concealed beneath the floor mat where C.M. had been sitting. Officer Jordan performed a field test on the contents, and the results confirmed his suspicion. C.M. denied knowing that the baggie was beneath the floor mat but admitted smoking a tobacco cigarette while the other two occupants passed marijuana back and forth. C.M.'s motions to dismiss the delinquency petition were denied by the trial court, and he was adjudicated delinquent for possession of marijuana and ordered to complete a level 4 program.

In order to carry its burden of proof in this constructive possession case, the State must have produced evidence to establish that C.M. knew of the presence of the marijuana, knew of its illicit nature, and had the ability to exercise control over it. K.L. v. State, 787 So.2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The State maintains that C.M.'s knowledge of the contraband can be inferred from circumstantial evidence which established that Officer Jordan observed a marijuana cigar being thrown from a passenger window, that the car was filled with marijuana smoke, and that all three boys smelled of burnt marijuana when they stepped out of the car. We conclude that this circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish that C.M. knew of the marijuana beneath the floor mat.

In Skelton v. State, 609 So.2d 716, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), this court held that when contraband is found in a space occupied by two or more persons, the State must "prove either that the accused had actual knowledge of the presence of the contraband or present incriminating statements and circumstances from which a trier of fact...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • NICHOLAS v. State of Fla.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 18, 2010
    ...had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it. Santiago v. State, 991 So.2d 439, 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); C.M. v. State, 818 So.2d 554, 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Furthermore, where contraband is found in a location accessible to more than one person, the defendant's knowledge of the......
  • Nicholas v. State Of Fla.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 28, 2010
    ...had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it. Santiago v. State, 991 So. 2d 439, 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); C.M. v. State, 818 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Furthermore, where contraband is found in a location accessible to more than one person, the defendant's knowledge of t......
  • Nava v. Sec'y
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • June 10, 2011
    ...had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it. Santiago v. State, 991 So.2d 439, 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); C.M. v. State, 818 So.2d 554, 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Where contraband is found in a location accessible to more than one person, the defendant's knowledge of the presence of ......
  • DMC v. State, 2D03-11.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 14, 2003
    ...So.2d 208; E.A.M. v. State, 684 So.2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Giddens v. State, 443 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In C.M. v. State, 818 So.2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), we We maintain the position that in some cases a defendant's knowledge of contraband may be inferred from circumstantial evi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT