98 So. 3d 783
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- F.Q., a juvenile, appeals an adjudication of delinquency for possession of cannabis.
- Trial court denied the motion for judgment of dismissal, challenging the State’s proof that the baggie was in F.Q.’s possession.
- Officer testified a baggie containing marijuana was found at the scene; three baggies were involved, but only one was admitted and tested.
- State did not link the admitted baggie to the baggie F.Q. allegedly dropped; no testimony on the others’ contents.
- There was no evidence F.Q. exercised dominion or control over the admitted baggie, or knew it contained marijuana.
- Court reverses and remands to vacate the adjudication of delinquency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the State’s evidence sufficient to prove F.Q.’s possession? | F.Q. contends the baggie admitted was not proven to be the one he dropped. | State argues circumstantial evidence supports constructive or actual possession. | Evidence failed to prove actual or constructive possession; judgment of dismissal reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- W.W. v. State, 993 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (de novo standard for dismissal akin to acquittal standard)
- Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So.2d 495 (Fla.2005) (reaffirmed substantial evidence standard for sufficiency)
- T.L.T. v. State, 53 So.3d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (if evidence does not support conviction, motion must be granted)
- Davis v. State, 761 So.2d 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (circumstantial evidence insufficient for actual possession)
- Isaac v. State, 730 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (constructive possession not shown where only passing baggie and no dominion)
- Stevens v. State, 782 So.2d 550 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (constructive possession proven by defendant’s control and circumstances)