Reynolds v. State
| Decision Date | 16 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D06-1694.,3D06-1694. |
| Citation | 983 So.2d 1192 |
| Parties | Howard REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Wasson & Associates and Roy D. Wasson, Miami, for appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Linda S. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before GERSTEN, C.J., and RAMIREZ and SHEPHERD, JJ.
Howard Reynolds ("Reynolds") appeals his conviction for trafficking in marijuana and conspiracy to traffic in marijuana in excess of twenty-five pounds. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
During an investigation at a local warehouse, two narcotics dogs alerted to the presence of drugs in shrink-wrapped cardboard barrels. Based on this information, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement ("FDLE") obtained a warrant to search the barrels. As FDLE agents opened the barrels, Reynolds entered the warehouse. Upon seeing the agents, Reynolds attempted to leave the premises, but the agents immediately arrested him, finding a matching bill of lading and an American Airlines travel voucher for a flight to California in his possession. Thereafter, they took him to FDLE headquarters for questioning.
At trial, the State introduced two inconsistent reports that the interviewing agent prepared. The first report, compiled on the day of the questioning, stated that Reynolds realized he was probably involved in something illegal because of the secrecy and cash involved, but his knowledge of the barrels' contents was speculation. The second report, prepared over one year later, stated that Reynolds answered affirmatively when asked if he knew there were drugs in the barrels. Further, the agent testified that everything noteworthy was in the first report.
The State also introduced evidence of Reynolds' prior travel to and from Los Angeles, as well as proof of similar barrels he had shipped from California. To further prove a conspiracy, the State introduced the fact that Reynolds' wife posted bond for both Reynolds and a co-defendant. Reynolds was convicted of trafficking and conspiracy to traffic in marijuana in excess of twenty-five pounds.
Reynolds asserts that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly trafficked in marijuana or conspired to traffic in marijuana. The State contends there was sufficient proof of the charges. We agree with Reynolds concerning the trafficking count and reverse, but affirm the conspiracy conviction.
In order to convict Reynolds of trafficking in marijuana, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Reynolds was "knowingly in actual or constructive possession of, in excess of 25 pounds of cannabis." § 893.135(1), Fla. Stat. (2002). Subsection 893.135(1) establishes two theories: (1) actual possession and (2) constructive possession.
First, for actual possession, the State must prove that "the thing is so close as to be within ready reach and is under control of the person." McCoy v. State, 840 So.2d 455, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) . Here, when Reynolds entered the warehouse, he was neither within ready reach, nor in control of the barrels containing the marijuana. Therefore, the actual possession theory fails.
Under constructive possession, the State must prove that the defendant knew of the presence of the contraband and was able to exercise dominion and control over it. Person v. State, 950 So.2d 1270, 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Links v. State, 927 So.2d 241, 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). However, if the drugs are not located inside the accused's exclusive possession, the State cannot infer his or her knowledge of the presence of and control over the drugs. Instead, the State must provide independent proof of knowledge. De La Cruz v. State, 884 So.2d 349, 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
In De La Cruz, the contraband was concealed in a shrink-wrapped block similar to a bar of soap. The police found the contraband in a kitchen cabinet. De La Cruz was not in exclusive possession of the kitchen area. The State did not present any evidence that the contraband was visible through the layers of plastic. The State did not fingerprint the wrapping, nor did the officers find any of De La Cruz's personal effects near the contraband. Thus, the court found that the State did not present any evidence that the contraband...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.J. v. State
...to exercise dominion and control over it." Jennings v. State, 124 So. 3d 257, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (citing Reynolds v. State, 983 So. 2d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)). Constructive possession can be difficult to establish when contraband is in the vicinity of two or more persons because ......
-
Taylor v. State
... ... 4. Defendant knew that the substance was cannabis ... Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 25.9 (2007) ... Proof of possession of a controlled substance may be actual or constructive. § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006); Reynolds v. State, 983 So.2d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Robinson, 936 So.2d at 1166. Because the State did not prove that Appellant had actual possession of the cannabis, and the cannabis in the grocery bag was not in plain view, the State had to establish constructive possession. Id.; Green v. State, ... ...
-
Horsley v. Sec'y, Case No. 8:14-cv-930-T-36AAS
...to exercise dominion and control over it." Jennings v. State, 124 So. 3d 257, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (citing Reynolds v. State, 983 So. 2d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)). "Mere proximity to contraband, without more, is legally insufficient to prove possession." Johnson v. State, 456 So. 2d ......
-
Jennings v. State
...accused's knowledge of the presence of contraband and his or her ability to exercise dominion and control over it. Reynolds v. State, 983 So.2d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Links v. State, 927 So.2d 241, 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). If the contraband is not located within the accused's exclusi......