Schaufele v. State
| Citation | 269 So.2d 400 |
| Decision Date | 22 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--848,71--848 |
| Parties | Eric Brian SCHAUFELE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Craig R. Wilson, of Ruffolo & Wilson, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Andrew I. Friedrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
By an information filed on 17 March 1970 in the Criminal Court of Record for Palm Beach County, Florida, the defendant was charged with the unlawful possession or control of a narcotic drug in violation of Section 398.03, F.S.1969, F.S.A. The defendant was convicted by a jury and ultimately sentenced to the Division of Corrections for a period of six months to two and one-half years.
The defendant raises two points for our consideration. The second point which we hold to be without merit does not require a discussion. The first point is whether or not there was sufficient evidence to show that the defendant's possession and control of the narcotic in question was accomplished by knowledge on his part that the thing possessed and controlled was a narcotic drug.
The pertinent evidence supplied by the state indicates that on 14 March 1970 the defendant present himself at the Lake Worth, Florida, post office with a postal notice directing the addressee to pick up a parcel. The parcel was addressed to 'Mark Chandler' at 832 North 'E' Street, Lake Worth, Florida. The defendant asked a clerk to give him the parcel and identified himself as 'Mark Chandler', the addressee shown on the notice. When asked for identification, the defendant told the clerk that he was not Mark Chandler; that Chandler lived with him, but was then overseas in the service. The defendant produced identification, signed a receipt with his proper name, and took the parcel. He walked from the post office to his parked automobile, threw the unopened package into the automobile, and was thereupon arrested by a special agent for the U.S. Treasury Department. The time lapse from the defendant's receipt of the package to the arrest was approximately one minute. The contents of the package were later examined by a chemist and determined by him to be a derivative of cannabis commonly known as 'hashish.' After defendant's arrest, a police officer from the Lake Worth Police Department went to the defendant's residence and made inquiries about Mark Chandler. He was unable to obtain any information as to Chandler's whereabouts or the reality of his existence.
The question is whether or not the foregoing facts constitute competent substantial evidence that the defendant knew the parcel contained a narcotic, such knowledge being an essential although implicit element of the crime charged. Frank v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. State
...for the addressee is insufficient to show that the accused had knowledge of the illegal contents of the package. See Schaufele v. State, Fla.App., 269 So.2d 400 (1972), where the evidence showed that the accused claimed to be the addressee but when asked to produce identification stated tha......
-
Hilding v. State, 73--221
...proof that he knew that the letter in his wife's purse contained cocaine. Rutskin v. State, Fla.App.1972, 260 So.2d 525; Schaufele v. State, Fla.App.1972, 269 So.2d 400. Likewise, it was incumbent on the state to prove, since defendant did not have actual possession, that he had constructiv......
-
Roberts v. State, s. 85-6
...1st DCA 1977); Hively v. State, 336 So.2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Willis v. State, 320 So.2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Shaufele v. State, 269 So.2d 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Constructive possession similarly requires proof of control over the " 'Constructive possession exists where the accus......
-
Andress v. State, 75-1866
...(Fla.1960); Hilding v. State, 291 So.2d 111 (Fla.4th DCA 1974); Rutskin v. State, 260 So.2d 525 (Fla.1st DCA 1972) and Schaufele v. State, 269 So.2d 400 (Fla.4th DCA 1972). Though Cohen involved the sale of obscene material, it was held that the We are not persuaded, however, that a proper ......