Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 06 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 42792,42792 |
| Citation | 279 So.2d 27 |
| Parties | Lawrence Lee SMITH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
We granted certiorari based upon a decisional conflict with Spataro v. State, 179 So.2d 873 (Fla.App.2d 1965); and Markman v. State, 210 So.2d 486 (Fla.App.3d 1968). These cases are in accord with the joint occupancy rule appearing in Frank v. State, 199 So.2d 117 (Fla.App.1st 1967). The conflict arises from the First District's ruling here at 265 So.2d 538 (Fla.App., 1972), which would create an exception to the general rule of joint occupancy requiring direct evidence of defendant's knowledge of the contraband upon the premises which cannot be inferred, absent the defendant's exclusive possession or control. The exception asserted by the First District here is in the instance of the joint occupancy of premises by persons living together in a legal husband and wife relationship. Specifically, the investigating officers located illegal drugs along with women's costume jewelry in a dresser drawer in the bedroom jointly occupied by defendant and his wife. This would appear to require some evidence to tie in the husband to the presence of such illegal drugs by the essential knowledge on his part. No such direct evidence was offered. Absent such proof, the motion for a judgment of acquittal should have been granted.
The First District held that the required knowledge of the presence of the contraband can be inferred to the husband as 'head of the household'. A couple living together without benefit of clergy under the same situation would apparently enjoy the advantage of a different result, requiring direct evidence of knowledge; such a rule would penalize those who follow the legal requirements of marriage.
The State puts the issue: 'The husband and wife relationship is another relationship by which essential knowledge can be inferred without the requirement for direct proof.' We do not feel in today's world that this is a valid basis to avoid the required evidence to prove knowledge in such a relationship.
Our recent holding in Markham v. Markham, 272 So.2d 813 (Fla.1973), that the husband had no right to invade the wife's own right of privacy by utilizing electronic devices on her telephone, supports our view and raises serious question about placing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...be ordered where defendant's connection to the place where the narcotics are located cannot be established. See, e. g., Smith v. State, 279 So.2d 27 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1973) (husband acquitted where narcotics were found in master bedroom among wife's possessions); Jordan v. State, 344 So.2d 1294 (......
-
Martin v. State
...to the rule that knowing possession cannot be inferred from mere evidence of nonexclusive control of the premises. E. g., Smith v. State (1973) Fla., 279 So.2d 27; State v. Bowers (1974) 87 N.M. 74, 529 P.2d 300; Mulligan v. State (1973) Wyo., 513 P.2d 180; People v. Davenport (1972) 39 Mic......
-
Everroad v. State
...to the rule that knowing possession cannot be inferred from mere evidence of nonexclusive control of the premises. E.g., Smith v. State (1973) Fla., 279 So.2d 27; State v. Bowers (1974) 87 N.M. 74, 529 P.2d 300; Mulligan v. State (1973) Wyo., 513 P.2d 180; People v. Davenport (1972) 39 Mich......
-
Chicone v. State
...and held the evidence was insufficient on the essential element of the defendant's knowledge of the contraband drug. See Smith v. State, 279 So.2d 27 (Fla.1973). It is apparent in Smith that we required proof of the knowledge of the contraband in order to sustain a conviction for simple pos......