124 So. 3d 257
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Jennings was convicted of attempted trafficking in cocaine; evidence included two open gym bags in a car he drove containing large quantities of cocaine and over $30,000 in cash; cocaine was in plain view on the front passenger seat floorboard; there were other passengers in the vehicle, including a front-seat passenger; DNA testing had not been completed at trial; defense argued lack of constructive possession and the State argued DNA results were not yet available; the trial court denied the verdict motion, the State’s closing remarks about DNA were challenged, and the court issued a curative instruction after sustaining defense objections; Jennings was sentenced to ten years in prison; he appeals on two issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive possession sufficiency | State argues Jennings had knowledge and dominion | Jennings contends no constructive possession | Sufficient evidence for constructive possession |
| Prosecutor's closing remarks and mistrial | State argues curative instruction adequate | Jennings asserts mistrial needed due to improper remarks | No abuse of discretion; curative instruction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250 (Fla. 1988) (plain view/ownership principles for dominion and control in contraband cases)
- Reynolds v. State, 983 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (knowledge element required for constructive possession)
- Ubiles v. State, 23 So.3d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (driver’s dominion when contraband in plain view in vehicle)
- Williams v. State, 110 So.3d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (distinguishes plain smell/view in vehicle contexts)
- Anderson v. State, 841 So.2d 390 (Fla. 2003) (harmless-error standard when curative instruction given on improper argument)
- DiGuilio v. State, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless-error standard in closing argument errors)
- Hazelwood v. State, 658 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (limits on fair-reply to defense arguments in closing)
- Kearney v. State, 846 So.2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (limits of fair-reply doctrine in closing)
- Martinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 2000) (reversal standards for improper closing arguments)