Langdon v. State, 69--760
| Decision Date | 13 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 69--760,69--760 |
| Citation | 235 So.2d 321 |
| Parties | Thomas LANGDON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Hughlan Long, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, C.J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant was adjudged guilty of the unlawful possession of marijuana, and this appeal is from that conviction.
One of the two points upon appeal urges a procedural error. Our review of the record convinces us that the claimed procedural error was not prejudicial to the appellant. Therefore we do not further consider the point. See Jeffcoat v. State, 103 Fla. 466, 138 So. 385, 388 (1931).
The second point urges that the evidence is insufficient to establish that appellant was guilty of the crime as a matter of law. We agree and reverse.
The appellant was one of eight occupants of a bus in which the investigating officer discovered a small quantity of marijuana. Appellant was tried with four others who were arrested at the same time. The trial judge directed a verdict as to three of the five. The record reveals no difference as to the evidence concerning the appellant and the defendants receiving directed verdicts except that appellant admitted he and three others lived in the bus. Appellant did not own the bus.
Appellant relies upon Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 117, and Markmam v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 486, for reversal. These cases stand for the rule that where the defendant has joint control of the premises where contraband is discovered the evidence must go further and show that the defendant had some knowledge that the contraband was on the premises. The evidence against the appellant does not meet this test.
The state relies upon this court's decision in Zicca v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 414, for affirmance. We think the cases are clearly distinguishable. In the Zicca case this court held that the trier of fact could have found the defendant had knowledge the marijuana was in the bus because: (1) the marijuana was in open view in a plastic container; (2) the defendant was the owner and the operator of the bus at the time of the arrest.
The instant record contains no evidence from which the trier of fact could determine that the appellant had possession or control of the marijuana. The evidence is not only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gaines
...Brown v. State, 481 P.2d 475 (Okl.Cr.1971); Commonwealth v. Schuloff, 218 Pa.Super. 209, 275 A.2d 835 (Sup.Ct.1971); Langdon v. State, 235 So.2d 321 (Fla.App.1970). Defendant was not a possessor of the premises and hence the law concerning the possible guilt of one enjoying nonexclusive pos......
-
Feltes v. People
...218 Pa.Super. 209, 275 A.2d 835 (1971); State ex rel. Glantz v. District Court, 154 Mont. 132, 461 P.2d 193 (1969). In Langdon v. State, 235 So.2d 321 (Fla.App.1970), it was held that a defendant who admitted living in a bus of which he was not the owner, could not be guilty of possession w......
-
State v. Sapp
...also, Brown v. State, 481 P.2d 475 (Okl.Cr.App.1971); Commonwealth v. Schuloff, 218 Pa.Super. 209, 275 A.2d 835 (1971); Langdon v. State, 235 So.2d 321 (Fla.App.1970). Applying these principles to the present case, it is clear that the only evidence adduced by the State bearing on defendant......
-
Brown v. State, 79-459
...rented motel facilities which he shared with a female. Many persons were seen going in and out on the day in question; Langdon v. State, 235 So.2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Marijuana found in bus which defendant and others lived. Eight persons were present in bus when contraband discovered; M......