Green v. State
| Decision Date | 19 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2296,83-2296 |
| Citation | 460 So.2d 986,10 Fla. L. Weekly 4 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 4 George GREEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sara Blumberg of Dubiner & Blumberg, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sarah B. Mayer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
George Emmett Green appeals from a judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of possession of cocaine. He asserts that the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. We agree and reverse.
A police officer and a confidential informant negotiated the purchase of five kilograms of cocaine with several individuals, other than appellant. The police officer and the confidential informant entered the bedroom of an apartment to complete the transaction. In the bedroom they saw cocaine on a table and saw appellant standing about ten feet away. Appellant did not participate in any of the conversations concerning the cocaine nor did he have any physical contact with it. After completing the negotiations the police officer left the room to signal the arrest. The police arrested appellant and the others in the apartment.
Appellant argues that the State failed to prove that he had constructive possession of the cocaine. In Wale v. State, 397 So.2d 738, 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), we held that three elements must be proved to establish constructive possession: "(1) The accused must have dominion and control over the contraband; (2) The accused must have knowledge that the contraband is within his presence, and; (3) The accused must have knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband." Appellee presented sufficient evidence to establish the second and third elements only. The evidence established appellant's presence in a room with cocaine in plain view, and established that appellant knew of the illicit nature of the contraband. However, appellant did not reside at the apartment, and appellee did not present other circumstantial evidence to establish that appellant had the ability to exercise dominion and control over the cocaine.
In Johnson v. State, 456 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), the Third District Court of Appeal stated:
Mere proximity to contraband, without more, is legally insufficient to prove possession. Bass v. United States, 326 F.2d 884 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 905, 84 S.Ct. 1164, 12 L.Ed.2d 176 (1964). In many instances, however, the ability to control narcotics will be inferred from the ability to exercise control over the premises where they are found. For this reason, the cases have sharply distinguished between the culpability of a mere visitor from that of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herrera v. State, 87-893
...an occupant. See Agee v. State, 522 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Brooks v. State, 501 So.2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Green v. State, 460 So.2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Johnson; Taylor v. State, 319 So.2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Here, the evidence established the elements of appellant's co......
-
L.J. v. State, 90-511
...127, 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Willis v. State, 320 So.2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).2 Compare Daudt, 368 So.2d at 54.3 Green v. State, 460 So.2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Kickasola v. State, 405 So.2d 200, 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Wale v. State, 397 So.2d 738, 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Ramirez v.......
-
State v. Rodriguez, 93-1590
...Appellee asserts that under any interpretation of the facts, the state cannot establish a prima facie case. See e.g., Green v. State, 460 So.2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Kuhn v. State, 439 So.2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). However, here there are facts evidencing dominion and control. How those ......
-
Brooks v. State, 85-983
...contraband is within his presence, and; (3) The accused must have knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband." Green v. State, 460 So.2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). See also Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250 (Fla.1983). All that the evidence against Daphne shows is that she was found sittin......