Hill v. State, 98-3390.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-3390.,98-3390. |
| Citation | 736 So.2d 133 |
| Parties | Harold Lee HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Denise O. Simpson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
The appellant challenges his conviction for possession of cocaine. Because the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove his constructive possession of the cocaine, we reverse the conviction.
The appellant was accompanied by one front-seat passenger as he drove an automobile. After the automobile was lawfully stopped and searched by police officers who found cocaine inside a bag just barely underneath the front seat on the driver's side, the appellant was charged with possession of cocaine. The prosecution theory at trial was that the cocaine had been within the appellant's constructive possession because it was only partially concealed underneath the seat and was directly beneath where the appellant had been sitting while driving the automobile.
The appellant argued in his motion for judgment of acquittal at trial and also argues on appeal that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence for the jury to find his constructive possession of the cocaine. To establish the appellant's constructive possession of the cocaine, the prosecution was required to present legally sufficient evidence that the appellant had (1) dominion and control over the cocaine; (2) knowledge that the contraband was within his presence; and (3) knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance. See, e.g., Harris v. State, 647 So.2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
.
Although the appellee acknowledges that mere proximity to contraband when a defendant is not in exclusive possession of the area is insufficient to demonstrate the necessary dominion and control and is not evidence inconsistent with innocence, see Moffatt v. State, 583 So.2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991),
the appellee nonetheless asserts that the evidence was sufficient in the present case. We disagree.
In Skelton v. State, 609 So.2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), the court reversed a drug conviction under circumstances very similar to those in the present case. In Skelton, drugs were found partially concealed under the passenger seat of the automobile in which Skelton was the passenger. Similarly, in Cordero v. State, 589 So.2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), the court found insufficient evidence of constructive possession by the passenger of a vehicle in which cocaine was found underneath the passenger seat between the seat and transmission tunnel. The court explained:
While appellant, sitting in the passenger seat, might have seen the bag if he looked for it or reached under the seat for it,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. State
...See, e.g., Culver v. State, 990 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Lester v. State, 891 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Hill v. State, 736 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also Earle, 745 So.2d at Because the State proved all the essential elements of the charged crime, the trial court correct......
-
Jennings v. State
...nervousness during a traffic stop alone is insufficient evidence of knowledge of contraband in a vehicle, see, e.g., Hill v. State, 736 So.2d 133, 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), it is one factor among others a trier-of-fact may consider in constructive possession cases. See Meme v. State, 72 So.3......
-
Jennings v. State
...nervousness during a traffic stop alone is insufficient evidence of knowledge of contraband in a vehicle, see, e.g., Hill v. State, 736 So. 2d 133, 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), it is one factor among others a trier-of-fact may consider in constructive possession cases. See Meme v. State, 72 So.......
-
State v. Williams, 98-2055.
...of the presence of the contraband, and had knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance. Brown, 428 So.2d at 250; Hill v. State, 736 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Farmer v. State, 588 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Knowledge of possession may be presumed or inferred where the State of......