E.A.M. v. State, 95-02644
| Decision Date | 11 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-02644,95-02644 |
| Citation | 684 So.2d 283 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2658 E.A.M., a minor, Appellant, v. STATE Of Florida, Appellee. Second District |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Jennifer Y. Fogle, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tracy L. Martinell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
E.A.M. appeals from an order of adjudication and disposition for possession of cannabis and argues that the state did not prove that he was in constructive possession of the marijuana. We agree and reverse.
On March 7, 1994, at 9:00 a.m., Tampa police officers were conducting "drug sale surveillance" in the area of 24th Street and Lake Avenue. Officer Collins saw a white female pull up to the intersection in a Suzuki jeep with three black male passengers. According to Officer Collins, the driver motioned to a known drug seller at the intersection. The known dealer walked over to the front passenger side of the jeep. A hand-to-hand transaction of currency for marijuana occurred between the dealer and the front-seat passenger. The jeep then drove off.
Officer Henry pulled the jeep over after following it for about one mile. The driver was asked to step out of the car first. Next, the front-seat passenger was asked to exit. The back-seat passengers were removed from the jeep individually, and E.A.M., who was seated in the right rear, was the third person to exit the jeep.
Officer Henry had E.A.M. walk to the rear of the jeep. Henry patted him down, and asked him if he had any marijuana, to which E.A.M. replied no. When Officer Henry looked in the back of the jeep, he noticed a couple of school books, a book bag on the seat, and in plain view a baggie of marijuana on the floorboard of the right rear of the car up by the front seat. Officer Henry did not see any marijuana on the floorboard at the time E.A.M. was asked to get out of the car, but the officer testified that it could have been obscured by E.A.M.'s feet.
E.A.M. correctly contends that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal because the state failed to prove that E.A.M. was in constructive possession of the marijuana. To establish constructive possession, the state must prove that the defendant "had dominion and control over the contraband, had knowledge that the contraband was within his presence, and had knowledge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.J. v. State
...knowledge that the contraband was within his presence, and had knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband.'" E.A.M. v. State, 684 So. 2d 283, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (quoting Skelton v. State, 609 So. 2d 716, 716-17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)); O.L.M. v. State, 767 So. 2d 617, 618-19 (Fla. 3d......
-
Sanders v. State
...622, 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ; Hargrove , 928 So.2d at 1256 ; Cruz v. State , 744 So.2d 568, 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ; E.A.M. v. State , 684 So.2d 283, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) ; Skelton v. State , 609 So.2d 716, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).Because the State failed to present sufficient proof of pos......
-
DMC v. State, 2D03-11.
...v. State, 744 So.2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); K.D.G. v. State, 720 So.2d 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Green, 667 So.2d 208; E.A.M. v. State, 684 So.2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Giddens v. State, 443 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA In C.M. v. State, 818 So.2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), we stated: We maintain th......
-
Williams v. State
...dominion and control may not be inferred or assumed but must be established through additional and independent proof. E.A.M. v. State, 684 So.2d 283, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Therefore, the State's burden was to prove two elements: (A) that Ms. Williams knew of the presence of the contraband......