Ross v. State, 81-353

• Decision Date: 02 March 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-353,81-353
• Citation: 411 So.2d 247
• Parties: Jane Marie ROSS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 247

411 So.2d 247

Jane Marie ROSS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 81-353.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 2, 1982.

Rehearing Denied April 5, 1982.

Stanley M. Goldstein, Miami, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Theda R. James, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Joseph Corey, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before BASKIN, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

Jane Ross was convicted of bringing marijuana into the State of Florida and possession of marijuana. The marijuana was found in the false bottom of Ross' suitcase during a search conducted by United States Customs Inspectors in the Customs area of the Miami International Airport upon Ross' arrival on a flight from Jamaica. Ross argues on appeal that she was entitled to the entry of a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the State failed to prove that the offenses were committed within this state. This argument is bottomed on Ross' contention that the marijuana was found and seized in, and therefore imported into and possessed in, an area which she contends is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government.

A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense committed wholly or partly within the state. § 910.005(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (1979); Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla.1980). If either the conduct that is an element of the offense or the result that is an element occurs within the state, the offense is deemed committed partly within this state. § 910.005(2), Fla.Stat. (1979). It is indisputable, and Ross does not claim otherwise, that the Miami International Airport lies within the territorial boundaries of the State of Florida, see Sections 6.081 and 6.09, Florida Statutes (1979), and the State proved that the offenses, at least in part, occurred there. Despite this proof, Ross' argument would have merit if, additionally, it had been indisputably established that the Customs area within the airport was property acquired by the United States from the State of Florida ¹ and that the United States had by separate act accepted exclusive jurisdiction over the acquired property. ² See 1958 Op.Atty.Gen. Fla. 058-309 (November 20, 1958). ³ But no such evidence appears in this record.

Thus, Ross is left with the claim that it was the prosecution's burden to show not merely that the offense occurred within the territorial boundaries of this state, but that the Customs area was not ceded to and acquired by the United States; or if the area was the property of the United States, that the United States had not obtained exclusive jurisdiction over it.

There is, in our view, no such burden upon the prosecution, notwithstanding that proof of jurisdiction is an essential element of the offense. Cf. State v. Davis, 203 So.2d 160 (Fla.1967) (in recidivist proceeding, State's burden to prove prior valid conviction was discharged when record of conviction was offered in evidence; defendant's burden to establish that presumptively valid conviction was invalid because obtained without counsel). The prosecution's burden to prove that an essential element of the crime was committed within this state was discharged here by proof that Ross possessed the narcotics at the Miami International Airport in Dade County within the territorial boundaries of Florida. It is the defendant's burden to show that an area or building within this state is without the jurisdiction of Florida by reason of cession and the acceptance of exclusive jurisdiction by the United States. See Hobbs v. Cochran, 143 So.2d 481 (Fla.1962) (wherein court implicitly placed burden on defendant by approving finding that state court had jurisdiction over crime, "(n)othing having been shown that civilian authority over, the area had been ceded."). Ross made no effort to meet that burden. ⁴

Alternatively, we adopt the ruling of the trial court that, even if, arguendo, the Customs area of the Miami International Airport were an enclave subject to exclusive Federal jurisdiction, a jury could reasonably conclude from the prosecution's proof that Ross constructively possessed the marijuana in this State, and brought it into this state, at the time the plane landed and until the time her luggage arrived in the Customs area.

We have examined Ross' other point on appeal and find it to be equally without merit, but requiring no discussion.

Affirmed.

1 Article I, Section 8, clause 17, of the United States Constitution empowers the United States to acquire lands from the states for certain specified uses, namely forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings. Sections 6.04 and 6.05, Florida Statutes (1979), provide the procedure by which the State of Florida cedes lands to the United States.

2 Article I, Section 8, clause 17, of the United States Constitution empowers the United States to exercise...