Medlin v. State, 71--1066
| Decision Date | 06 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--1066,71--1066 |
| Citation | 279 So.2d 41 |
| Parties | Walter L. MEDLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael F. Cycmanick, and James M. Russ, of Law Offices of James M. Russ, Orlando, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Andrew I. Friedrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction for possession of barbiturates and central nervous system stimulates in violation of § 404.02, F.S.1969, F.S.A. At the close of the state's case, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. It was denied. Following the rendition of the verdict, the defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficient. The motion was denied, the defendant was adjudicated guilty, and sentenced.
The defendant raises numerous points on appeal, but one point is dispositive of the entire cause. That is the point going to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict.
Factually it appears from the briefs of the parties that the defendant's home was searched and found to contain certain drugs, the possession of which formed the basis of the information in this case. The defendant was not present at the time the drugs were found, although his brother and two other persons were present in his house at the time.
The operative language of the statute under which the defendant was charged, § 404.02(4), F.S.1969, F.S.A., provides:
'404.02 . . . The following shall be unlawful:
(4) The actual or constructive possession or control of a barbiturate, central nervous system stimulant or other drug controlled by this chapter . . .'.
Because the defendant was not in actual physical possession of the drugs when they were seized, the conviction, of necessity, had to rest on constructive possession. Constructive possession exists where a person without the manual possession of an item known of its presence on or about his premises and has the ability to maintain control over the same. Griffin v. State, 276 So.2d 191, Fla. 4DCA, opinion filed April 9, 1973.
The narrow issue here, as in the Griffin case, is whether or not the state's evidence was sufficient to present a jury issue on the question of the defendant's knowledge of the presence of the drugs inside his house. The state contends that the evidence shows that the residence where the drugs were found was in the exclusive possession of the defendant and that knowledge of the presence of the drugs could be inferred from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, 79-459
...4th DCA 1973). Drugs found in apartment occupied by defendant's paramour. Defendant occupied apartment sporadically; Medlin v. State, 279 So.2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Defendant owned residence but was not present at time of search. Defendant's brother and two other persons were present whe......
-
Thompson v. State
...4th DCA 1976); Willis v. State, 320 So.2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Taylor v. State, 319 So.2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Medlin v. State, 279 So.2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Griffin v. State, 276 So.2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Torres v. State, 253 So.2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Langdon v. State, ......
-
Walker v. State, 71--328
...found is not sufficient proof of possession where there is no exclusive possession of the premises. Smith v. State, supra; Medlin v. State, Fla.App.1973, 279 So.2d 41; Arant v. State, Fla.App.1972, 256 So.2d 515; Markman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 486; Kirtley v. State, Fla.App.1971,......
-
State v. Peavey, 75--534
...SCHEB, J., concurs. BOARDMAN, J., concurs in conclusion. 1 See, e.g., Amato v. State (Fla.App.3d, 1974), 296 So.2d 609; Medlin v. State (Fla.App.4th, 1973), 279 So.2d 41; Griffin v. State (Fla.App.4th, 1973), 276 So.2d 191. Also, c.f. Smith v. State (Fla.1973), 279 So.2d 27; Camp v. State (......