Skelton v. State
| Decision Date | 02 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-03581,91-03581 |
| Citation | 609 So.2d 716 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Week. D2719 Kerry Lance SKELTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
We reverse the conviction of Kerry Lance Skelton for possession of cocaine and direct his discharge because there was insufficient evidence that he possessed cocaine.
The following evidence was offered at trial. Police officers stopped the car in which Skelton was a passenger. The officer ordered Skelton to exit the car. The officer found a plastic baggie containing cocaine residue partially hidden under the passenger seat near where Skelton's feet had been. The officers arrested Skelton for possession of cocaine. At the conclusion of this evidence, Skelton moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the state presented insufficient evidence to prove possession. The trial judge denied the motion and, as the trier of fact, found him guilty.
Skelton did not have actual possession of the cocaine. In order to prove guilt based on constructive possession, the state must show that the accused had dominion and control over the contraband had knowledge that the contraband was within his presence, and had knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband. Spataro v. State, 179 So.2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). When the contraband is found at a place jointly occupied by two or more persons, knowledge of the presence of the contraband and the accused's ability to maintain control over it will not be inferred and must be established by proof. Murphy v. State, 511 So.2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The state must prove either that the accused had actual knowledge of the presence of the contraband or present incriminating statements and circumstances from which a trier of fact lawfully might infer knowledge by the accused of the presence of the contraband. Murphy. Mere proximity to contraband is insufficient to establish constructive possession. Lewis v. State, 570 So.2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
The only evidence the state presented in this case was Skelton's proximity to the contraband. We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he possessed the cocaine. The case of Cordero v. State, 589 So.2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.J. v. State
...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 DCA 2000) ("mere location of the substance" is not independent proof of ......
-
Chicone v. State
...658 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). We accepted jurisdiction based upon conflict with numerous decisions, including: Skelton v. State, 609 So.2d 716, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Moffatt v. State, 583 So.2d 779, 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Kuhn v. State, 439 So.2d 291, 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Brown......
-
N.G.S. v. State
...drug paraphernalia in the driver's side visor, even where the driver was fumbling behind the visor at the time); Skelton v. State, 609 So.2d 716, 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding that evidence was legally insufficient to prove that the passenger in a jointly occupied vehicle actually possess......
-
D.V. v. State
...and the accused's ability to maintain control over it will not be inferred and must be established by proof." Skelton v. State, 609 So.2d 716, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). See also Sanders v. State, 210 So.3d 246, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ; Jennings v. State, 124 So.3d 257, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).......