Cook v. State, 89-3341
| Decision Date | 11 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-3341,89-3341 |
| Citation | 571 So.2d 530 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D3020 Betty Ann COOK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Barbara M. Linthicum, Public Defender, and David P. Gauldin, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Laura Rush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Cook appeals the trial court's finding that she was in constructive possession of a crack pipe and its residue, contending that proof of possession was legally insufficient to show that she had knowledge and ability to maintain control over the pipe. We agree and reverse with directions that appellant be discharged as to such offense.
The evidence reveals that a law enforcement officer found the crack pipe in appellant's open purse during a raid. Appellant, a dancer at the bar that was raided, testified that she had placed the purse, which had no money inside it, on the bar and left it there during one of her dance routines. The raid took place while appellant was on stage.
Because the crack pipe was not found in Cook's actual possession, the state was required to prove that she constructively possessed it. To establish constructive possession of contraband, the state must show that the defendant (1) knew of the presence of the contraband, (2) knew of its illicit nature, and (3) had dominion and control over it. Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983). "If the premises, area, structure, vehicle, etc. in which a contraband substance is found is within the exclusive possession of the accused, the accused's guilty knowledge of the presence of the contraband, together with his ability to maintain control over it, may be inferred." Wale v. State, 397 So.2d 738, 739-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). When the premises on which the contraband is found are not in the defendant's exclusive control, the state must establish by independent proof, rather than by inference, knowledge and ability to control the contraband. Brown, 428 So.2d at 252. When constructive possession is shown by circumstantial evidence, as here, the evidence must be inconsistent with the defendant's theory of innocence. D.K.W. v. State, 398 So.2d 885, 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
In our judgment the state's evidence was not inconsistent with the defendant's reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Appellant obviously did not have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knight v. State, 5D11–2875.
...2d DCA 2001); E.H.A. v. State, 760 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); S.B. v. State, 657 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); and Cook v. State, 571 So.2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Additionally, although we certify conflict based upon application of the special circumstantial evidence standard, as we......
-
Jackson v. State
...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......
-
Tucker v. State
...knew about nor had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it. See, e.g., Wagner, 950 So.2d at 513 ; Cook v. State, 571 So.2d 530, 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (holding that State's wholly circumstantial evidence of constructive possession of a crack pipe in defendant's purse was insuf......
-
Knight v. State
...with the decisions of the First District Court of Appeal in Evans v. State, 32 So.3d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), and Cook v. State, 571 So.2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) ; the decisions of the Second District Court of Appeal in P.M.M. v. State, 884 So.2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), N.K.W., Jr. v. Stat......