State v. St. Jean, Nos. 94-1132
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | HARRIS |
| Citation | 658 So.2d 1056 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1475 STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Beyard ST. JEAN, Appellee. STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Noelvil SOIRELUS, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 23 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | 94-1472,Nos. 94-1132 |
Page 1056
v.
Beyard ST. JEAN, Appellee.
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Noelvil SOIRELUS, Appellee.
Fifth District.
Rehearing Denied in No. 94-1132 only Aug. 15, 1995.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellant State of Fla.
James Dickson Crock, of James Dickson Crock, P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellee Beyard St. Jean.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Nancy Ryan, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellee Noelvil Soirelus.
HARRIS, Chief Judge.
Beyard St. Jean was driving his vehicle up I-95 in Volusia County with Noelvil Soirelus as his passenger. When St. Jean weaved into another lane, a deputy sheriff stopped him and gave him a warning. Without contradiction, St. Jean then consented to a search of his vehicle. St. Jean and Soirelus
Page 1057
were standing outside the vehicle as the officer commenced the search.The officer found a flowered bag on the floorboard on the passenger side of the vehicle. When he started to search this bag, St. Jean and Soirelus fled the scene. Unsurprisingly, the bag contained over two kilograms of cocaine. When apprehended, both St. Jean and Soirelus were charged with trafficking in cocaine.
Both St. Jean and Soirelus filed a c-4 1 motion to dismiss, contending that the irrefutable facts establish the State's inability to prove that either defendant had constructive or actual possession of the flowered bag since it was found in a common area of the vehicle and carried the fingerprints of neither defendant. By traverse, the State asserted that each defendant had dominion and control over the cocaine and knowledge of its presence. The court granted both motions to dismiss. The State appeals; we reverse.
We have elected to consolidate these cases for the purpose of this opinion.
First, we find that under the facts of these cases, a c-4 motion was an inappropriate vehicle to challenge the issue of knowledge as an element of constructive possession. The court in State v. Duran, 550 So.2d 45, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), held:
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisher v. Fla. Attorney Gen. & Sec'y, Case No: 2:16-cv-157-FtM-99MRM
...as an element of constructive possession is an ultimate question which a jury must decide on factual inferences. State v. St. Jean, 658 So. 2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). "In considering a (c)(4) motion the trial judge may not try or determine factual issues nor consider the weight of c......
-
State v. Paleveda, No. 98-05003.
...in a possession case is a question of fact, that 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. Sa......
-
Earle v. State, No. 98-4393
...(Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The vehicle was owned by Earle's wife. Earle and Green did not attempt to elude the police. Cf. State v. St. Jean, 658 So.2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). No illegal drugs were in the defendants' actual possession or in plain view in the passenger compartment of the c......
-
Jacobs v. State, No. 98-1965.
...of flight evidence but merely restricted the trial judge from commenting on it. See Fenelon, 594 So.2d at 294-95; State v. St. Jean, 658 So.2d 1056, 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA...
-
Fisher v. Fla. Attorney Gen. & Sec'y, Case No: 2:16-cv-157-FtM-99MRM
...as an element of constructive possession is an ultimate question which a jury must decide on factual inferences. State v. St. Jean, 658 So. 2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). "In considering a (c)(4) motion the trial judge may not try or determine factual issues nor consider the weight of c......
-
State v. Paleveda, No. 98-05003.
...in a possession case is a question of fact, that 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. Sa......
-
Earle v. State, No. 98-4393
...(Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The vehicle was owned by Earle's wife. Earle and Green did not attempt to elude the police. Cf. State v. St. Jean, 658 So.2d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). No illegal drugs were in the defendants' actual possession or in plain view in the passenger compartment of the c......
-
Jacobs v. State, No. 98-1965.
...of flight evidence but merely restricted the trial judge from commenting on it. See Fenelon, 594 So.2d at 294-95; State v. St. Jean, 658 So.2d 1056, 1058 (Fla. 5th DCA...