State v. Odom
| Decision Date | 28 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D09–3997.,5D09–3997. |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant,v.Derrick M. ODOM, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.EVANDER, J.
The State appeals from an order granting Derrick Odom's post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of trafficking in methamphetamine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1)(E)(State may appeal order granting motion for judgment of acquittal after jury verdict). Because the State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict, we reverse.
Odom was charged with, inter alia, manufacturing of methamphetamine,1 possession of drug paraphernalia,2 and trafficking in methamphetamine. 3 Three co-defendants were also charged with manufacturing of methamphetamine and trafficking in methamphetamine. However, they entered into plea agreements with the State and subsequently testified at Odom's trial.
The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, reflects that at approximately 5:30 p.m. on September 12, 2008, detectives began conducting surveillance of Odom's residence, a single-wide trailer. Two of the co-defendants were observed entering the trailer at approximately 10:00 p.m. About an hour later, Odom arrived in a pick-up truck and entered the residence. Odom was later observed carrying large boards out to the truck, backing the truck over the boards, and then re-entering the trailer.
Around midnight, a marked deputy's vehicle was brought to the scene because the detectives decided to conduct a “knock and talk.” The smell of acetone (a chemical used in the manufacture of methamphetamine) could be detected seven to ten feet from the trailer. When an officer knocked on the front door, Odom exited the back door. After being stopped, Odom advised a deputy that three children were in the residence. Deputies went into the residence and observed the three co-defendants-one of whom was attempting to pour a liquid from a Mason jar down the kitchen sink. The deputies directed the co-defendant to cease from any effort to dispose the liquid, and then located the three children. All of the individuals were then removed from the trailer so they could be decontaminated by a hazardous response unit. After obtaining a search warrant, the detectives re-entered the trailer to conduct a search.
Inside the trailer, the detectives found what was described as an “active meth lab.” The substance which a co-defendant had attempted to pour down the sink was identified as pseudoephedrine. Fifty-four and one-tenth (54.1) grams of the pseudoephedrine was recovered. The detectives also found numerous chemicals, products, and equipment commonly used for the manufacture of methamphetamine.
In the pick-up truck that had been driven by Odom, a two-liter Mountain Dew bottle was found beneath a tool box. The bottle contained 434.7 grams of a liquid containing methamphetamine. The large boards that detectives had witnessed Odom carry outside and back-over with the truck had newspaper present between them. Inside the newspaper were iodine crystals—a necessary ingredient for the production of methamphetamine. The truck was found to be registered to Odom's stepmother.
At trial, two of the co-defendants testified that on the day in question, Odom was actively engaged in the manufacturing of methamphetamine. They detailed Odom's specific activities in furthering the manufacturing process. The final methamphetamine product had not been generated prior to law enforcement intervention.
At the conclusion of the State's case, Odom moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts. On the trafficking count, Odom's argument was that the State failed to prove that he had knowledge of the presence of the pseudoephedrine found in the house or the methamphetamine found in the truck, or that he was ever in possession of same. The trial court reserved ruling on this count.
The jury ultimately returned a verdict, finding Odom guilty of 1) the lesser included offense of attempted manufacture of methamphetamine; 2) possession of drug paraphernalia; and 3) trafficking as charged with a special finding that the quantity involved was twenty-eight (28) grams or more but less than two hundred (200) grams.
Odom subsequently renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal as to the trafficking count. He argued that the jury verdict must have been based on the methamphetamine found in Odom's stepmother's truck and the State had not produced sufficient evidence to establish that Odom had actual or constructive knowledge of the illegal drugs found in the truck. The State argued that the trafficking amount found by the jury (between 28 and 200 grams) was consistent with the 54.1 grams of pseudoephedrine found in Odom's residence and which a co-defendant was attempting to pour in the sink when deputies entered the trailer. The State further correctly observed that while the manufacturing count referenced methamphetamine only, the trafficking count brought against Odom alleged that he had unlawfully and knowingly manufactured or possessed methamphetamine and/or pseudoephedrine. The trial court granted Odom's motion without explanation.
A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Bufford v. State, 844 So.2d 812, 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The motion should be denied if the State presents competent evidence to establish each element of the offense. Id. In moving for a judgment of acquittal, a defendant admits not only the facts stated in the evidence, but also every reasonable conclusion favorable to the State that the fact-finder might fairly infer from the evidence. Id. The record is reviewed de novo to determine whether sufficient evidence supports the verdict. Id...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...of its presence on or about the premises, and has the ability to exercise and maintain control over the contraband." State v. Odom, 56 So.3d 46, 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (citing Harris v. State, 954 So.2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)).7 The State presented evidence that the disk was located......
-
State v. Sims
...924.07(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2010); Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(c)(1)(E); State v. Williams, 742 So.2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); State v. Odom, 56 So.3d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction is a question of law. See Jones v. State, 790 So.2d 1194, 1197 (F......
-
Bartolone v. State
...or superficial possession." Bennett v. State, 46 So. 3d 1181, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (internal quotations omitted); State v. Odom , 56 So. 3d 46, 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). Here, the State introduced evidence that while surveilling the property over the course of months, officers observed App......
-
Bartolone v. State
... ... trial court should not grant a motion for [JOA] 'unless ... the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the ... State, fails to establish a prima facie case of ... guilt.'" State v. Lee, 230 So.3d 886, 888 ... (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting State v. Odom, 862 ... So.2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)). "If the [S]tate ... establishes a prima facie case of guilt, a trial court errs ... in granting a motion for [JOA]." Id ... "A ... defendant may be convicted of possession if he is found to be ... in ... ...
-
Crimes
...for discussion of the sufficiency of evidence to show joint constructive possession of drugs found in defendant’s home.) State v. Odom, 56 So. 3d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) Defendant was charged with trafficking in hyrdocodone by being in possession of more than 28 grams of pills containing hyd......