G.D. v. State, 84-566

• Decision Date: 25 November 1986
• Docket Number: No. 84-566,84-566
• Citation: 497 So.2d 1318,11 Fla. L. Weekly 2468
• Parties: 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2468 G.D., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1318

497 So.2d 1318

11 Fla. L. Weekly 2468

G.D., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 84-566.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

Nov. 25, 1986.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Jack B. Ludin and Steven Scott, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by G.D., a juvenile, from an adjudication of delinquency for possession and importation of marijuana. We affirm.

A petition for delinquency was filed against G.D. after marijuana was discovered in a Jamaican dish she was bringing into the United States. A native of Jamaica, sixteen-year-old G.D. flew from Jamaica to Miami International Airport. She was en route to visit her mother who lived in Broward County. G.D. completed a customs declaration form which indicated that she was bringing various Jamaican delicacies into the country, including a fried fish specialty. According to routine procedure, Randy Parsley, a Department of Agriculture agent, inspected these foods. The fried fish was stored in two opaque plastic containers from which the smell of vinegar emanated. Underneath the fish in one of these containers, Parsley discovered what appeared to be a brick of marijuana. Parsley contacted Customs Inspector Mary Smallwood, who examined the second fish container; it also yielded a marijuana brick. Field and laboratory tests subsequently verified that the substance was marijuana.

At the adjudicatory hearing, G.D. testified that she had no inkling that marijuana was concealed in the plastic containers. According to G.D., she had been asked by a Ms. Piert, a Jamaican acquaintance of her grandmother, to deliver the containers to a gentleman named Kenneth in the United States. G.D. stated that her inspection of the containers disclosed only the presence of fish and the odor of vinegar and that she never removed the fish to check for items hidden underneath.

At the close of all the evidence, G.D. moved for a judgment of acquittal based upon the state's failure to prove the crucial element of knowledge in possessing and bringing contraband into the country. Counsel for G.D. argued that the state had not refuted G.D.'s claim of ignorance as to knowledge of the marijuana. The court denied the motion, entered a finding of guilt, and adjudicated G.D. delinquent.

The issue raised by G.D.'s appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying G.D.'s motion for judgment of acquittal. We conclude that the trial court correctly denied the motion. G.D. claims that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a finding that she knowingly possessed marijuana. G.D. correctly points out that a special standard of review governs the question of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in criminal prosecutions. This court has summarized this standard as follows:

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 appellate court, the evidence fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt but, rather, whether the jury might reasonably so conclude. (Citations omitted.)

Muwwakil v. State, 435 So.2d 304, 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 444 So.2d 417 (Fla.1984). Moreover, in considering an appeal of a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal,...