154 So. 3d 426
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Police received a BOLO for appellant Williams and found him sitting on a front porch; he went into the house and locked the door when an officer exited his patrol car.
- Backup established a perimeter and waited for a search warrant; no one entered or exited the house while they waited.
- A drug-detection dog (Bingo) alerted at an interior windowsill where officers observed a Krazy Glue tube; later the tube contained 60 crack cocaine rocks.
- No fingerprints were recovered from the tube or windowsill; no witness saw Williams possessing or near the tube, and the house was leased to a woman and frequented by multiple people.
- During transport, Williams stated, “I ran into the house to put up my dope. I’m a dope boy… I might sell a little dope,” but no other drugs were found linked to him.
- Trial court denied motion for judgment of acquittal; jury convicted Williams of possession with intent to sell or deliver; appellate court reversed and remanded for discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession (actual or constructive) | Evidence and circumstances (Williams ran into house; his statement about "putting up" dope; dog alerted to cocaine) support conviction | Evidence insufficient: no fingerprints, no eyewitness possession, many people frequented house, tube not tied to Williams | Reversed — evidence insufficient to connect cocaine to Williams or show knowledge/control; acquittal required |
| Whether appellant's statement provided independent proof of possession | Statement that he hid dope supports inference he possessed the cocaine found | Statement could refer to other drugs; does not link him to the specific cocaine on the windowsill | Statement insufficient to prove actual or constructive possession; conviction cannot stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Meme v. State, 72 So.3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (standard for motion for judgment of acquittal)
- Toole v. State, 472 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 1985) (evidence sufficiency principles)
- Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla. 2002) (de novo review of judgment of acquittal)
- Scruggs v. State, 785 So.2d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (actual possession defined)
- Duncan v. State, 986 So.2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (constructive possession defined)
- Brown v. State, 8 So.3d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (proximity alone insufficient for constructive possession)
- Edmond v. State, 963 So.2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (joint-occupancy/plain-view limits)
- Martoral v. State, 946 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (need independent proof of knowledge and control)
- Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250 (Fla. 1983) (plain-view in common area satisfies knowledge for jointly-occupied premises)
- Clark v. State, 670 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (defendant's admission may not tie him to specific drugs found)