E.H., In Interest of, 89-2333
| Decision Date | 15 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-2333,89-2333 |
| Parties | In the Interest of E.H., a child. 579 So.2d 364, 16 Fla. L. Week. D1315 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Susan D. Cline, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
E.H., a minor, appeals his adjudication of delinquency and sentence for possession of cocaine. We reverse.
A police officer was dispatched to an area of suspected drug dealing where he witnessed two individuals inside a 1978 BMW conversing with three other individuals leaning inside the vehicle. The officer suspected a drug transaction and approached the vehicle. The three on foot fled at the sight of the approaching officer. The officer requested that the remaining two exit the vehicle and inquired about their activities. In response, appellant, who had been seated in the driver's seat, stated that they were there to buy "weed." The officer frisked both, finding a small quantity of marijuana on the passenger. Appellant told the officer that he owned the vehicle and gave the officer consent to search. The initial search revealed nothing. When backup arrived the second officer conducted a more thorough search. This search produced a rock of cocaine located between the driver's seat and the middle transmission tunnel, hidden from plain view. The first officer field tested the contraband and identified it as cocaine.
At the close of the state's case appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal based on the state's failure to prove constructive possession of the cocaine. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant then testified that the vehicle belonged to his father and that he originally claimed ownership thinking that the officer suspected the vehicle as being stolen. Appellant also testified that he did not know of the presence of the cocaine. The trial court found appellant guilty of possession of cocaine.
Appellant raises two points on appeal. We need only discuss the first which we find dispositive. Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal since the state failed to prove in its case in chief that he had constructive possession of the contraband. We agree and reverse.
Where, as here, illegal contraband is found in a vehicle jointly occupied by two or more persons, the state has the burden to show constructive possession on the part of the accused. See Murphy v. State, 511 So.2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); see also Scott v. State, 559 So.2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Knowledge of the presence of the contraband is an essential element of constructive possession and will not be inferred from the accused's presence, but must be supported by proof. Murphy, supra. As this court stated in Murphy:
Such proof may consist either of evidence establishing that the accused had actual knowledge of the presence of the contraband, or of evidence of incriminating statements and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dettloff v. State
...support a controlled substances conviction. See, e.g., Cordero v. State, 589 So.2d 407 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991); In the Interest of E.H., 579 So.2d 364 (Fla. App. 4th Dist.1991); Johnson v. State, 444 So.2d 891 (Ala.Cr.App.1983). Unlike the present case, however, none of the cases he cites in......
-
State v. Williams, 98-2055.
...purposes of the jury instruction on actual possession. Cf. T.W. v. State, 666 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); In Interest of E.H., 579 So.2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (reversing adjudication of delinquency for possession of cocaine, where juvenile driver of vehicle with a passenger claimed no......
-
Daniels v. State, 4D00-1421.
...cocaine and marijuana where state failed to establish defendant's knowledge of the presence of the illegal drugs); In the Interest of E.H., 579 So.2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (holding that state failed to show constructive possession of cocaine where evidence failed to exclude the possibilit......
-
Cordero v. State, 91-81
...the ability to control it will not be inferred from the accused's presence but must be established by independent proof. In re E.H., 579 So.2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Brown; Wale; Frank v. State, 199 So.2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). In Murphy v. State, 511 So.2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), the ......