State v. Duran, 88-2814

Decision Date22 August 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-2814,88-2814
Citation550 So.2d 45,14 Fla. L. Weekly 1975
Parties14 Fla. L. Weekly 1975 The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Eduardo Riva DURAN, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Quinon & Strafer and Jose M. Quinon and Richard Strafer, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, FERGUSON and GERSTEN, JJ.

FERGUSON, Judge.

The State appeals a written order granting a sworn motion to dismiss a cocaine trafficking case. We reverse.

In response to a telephone tip from an allegedly confidential source, Metro-Dade officers set up a routine surveillance. The detectives had been informed of a planned narcotics transaction at a particular southwest apartment building, involving a white vehicle.

While surveying in the vicinity of the identified building, police officers observed an elderly male standing in the parking lot for about twenty minutes holding a brown paper shopping bag. Its contents were not visible. A white car drove up which the man entered on the passenger side. After approximately fifteen minutes, the man exited the vehicle--without the brown bag--and disappeared empty-handed into the building.

The officers followed the white car until the driver and sole occupant of the car--defendant below, Eduardo Riva Duran--stepped out of the vehicle near a home on Old Cutler Road. Duran agreed to talk with an officer who had exited the unmarked police car. Duran further consented to a search of the car which, it was discovered, was not registered to him. A bag containing a ledger detailing drug transactions was found on the front seat. An empty brown paper bag--identified as the one which was previously seen filled during the surveillance--was on the back seat. A narcotics dog alerted for the presence of illegal drugs in the area of the back seat. Three kilos of cocaine were eventually found in a secret compartment under the back seat.

Duran was arrested and charged with trafficking in cocaine. He filed a sworn motion to dismiss alleging that the material facts failed to demonstrate that he knew that cocaine was hidden in the automobile. The State filed a traverse specifically denying the material allegations of Duran's motion to dismiss, and a demurrer by which it contended that the issues of knowledge and constructive possession are not subject to a determination on a pretrial sworn motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, the trial court granted the rule 3.190(c)(4) motion to dismiss on grounds that the undisputed facts failed to establish knowledge or constructive possession of the drugs.

Generally, the issue of knowledge, as an element of constructive possession, Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983), is an ultimate question which a jury must decide on factual inferences; it is not subject to a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). State v. Farrugia, 419 So.2d 1118, 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). See also S.T.N. v. State, 474 So.2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (knowledge is not a proper issue to be decided on a motion to dismiss); Cummings v. State, 378 So.2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (knowledge is an ultimate fact question not subject to a motion to dismiss under Rule 3.190(c)(4)), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 635 (Fla.1980); State v. Alford, 395 So.2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (whether the defendant knew of the presence of a controlled substance, in light of the State's traverse, was an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Paleveda, 98-05003.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 20, 1999
    ...element is not a proper consideration on a motion to dismiss. See State v. St. Jean, 658 So.2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); State v. Duran, 550 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); S.T.N. v. State, 474 So.2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see also State v. Savarino, 381 So.2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Cumming......
  • Hampton v. State, s. 95-907
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 4, 1996
    ...619 So.2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Green v. State, 602 So.2d 1306 (Fla. 4th DCA); review denied, 613 So.2d 4 (Fla.1992); State v. Duran, 550 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Hampton's motion for judgment of Next, we find no merit to Hampton's second a......
  • State v. Snyder, 92-02265
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 27, 1994
    ...motion. Milton; State v. Rogers, 386 So.2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 392 So.2d 1378 (Fla.1980). See also State v. Duran, 550 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In addition to the above-mentioned facts, a review of the appellee's motion indicates that he attached and made a part of the motio......
  • Woods v. State, 91-0514
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 25, 1992
    ...United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez, 774 F.2d 1036 (11th Cir.1985); Interest of G.B.S., 417 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); State v. Duran, 550 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Muwwakil v. State, 435 So.2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), petition for review denied, 444 So.2d 417 (Fla.1984). See also State......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT