SABASTIAN JACOBS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Sabastian Jacobs appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a violent career criminal. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish constructive possession of the firearm found in the vehicle he was driving.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the defendant exercised constructive possession of the firearm based on the totality of circumstances, including his identification as the driver, the location of the firearm near the driver's seat, his driver's license in the vehicle, the vehicle owner's denial of ownership, and his flight from police.
[1] To establish constructive possession of a firearm, the State must prove the defendant knew of its presence, knew of its illicit nature, and had or shared dominion and con…
[2] When a firearm is found in an area of joint, rather than exclusive, possession, knowledge of the firearm's presence and the defendant's ability to control it must be esta…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In order to establish that the defendant had constructive possession of the firearm the state must show that the defendant knew of its presence, knew of its illicit nature, and had or shared dominion and control over it.”
Establishes the three-part test required to prove constructive possession of a firearm
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo police officers observed a vehicle traveling at high speed and pursued it. The driver and a passenger fled the vehicle. Officers identified Jacobs…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Independent Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Sabastian Jacobs, appeals his conviction and sentence for the unlawful possession of a firearm by a violent career criminal. We affirm.
One evening two police officers observed a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed. Both officers pursued the vehicle until it stopped near a residential area; two occupants bailed out of the vehicle and fled. Both officers saw the driver’s face. A search for the suspects led to an apartment where its resident gave officers permission to search. Inside, police found the defendant who was identified by both of the original pursuing officers as the driver. In the vehicle, the officers found a handgun partially hidden under the driver’s seat and the defendant’s driver’s license on the driver’s seat.
In order to establish that the defendant had constructive possession of the firearm the state must show that the defendant knew of its presence, knew of its illicit nature, and had or shared dominion and control over it. See Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983); Torres v. State, 520 So. 2d 78, 79-80 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Since the location where the firearm was found was in joint, rather than exclusive, possession of the defendant, then knowledge of the firearm’s presence and the defendant’s ability to control it will not be inferred but must be established by independent proof. Id.
The owner of the vehicle testified that the firearm did not belong to her. Two police officers positively identified the defendant as the driver of the vehicle and found the defendant’s driver’s license on the driver’s seat. The firearm was located to the far left of the driver’s seat near the driver’s door and away from the reach of the passenger. The gun was positioned such that the back half of the weapon was “sticking out” in plain view. Finally, after police engaged the vehicle driven by the defendant, he fled and attempted to evade detection.1 Based on the totality of these facts, we hold that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the defendant exercised constructive possession of the firearm. See Wilcox v. State, 522 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
Affirmed.
. Naturally, evidence of the defendant's flight cannot be the sole evidence of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt. See Merritt v. State, 523 So. 2d 573, 574 (Fla.1988); Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903, 908 (Fla.1981); State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1968); Daniels v. State, 108 So. 2d 755 (Fla.1959); Blackwell v. State, 79 Fla. 709, 86 So. 224 (1920). Flight alone is no more consistent with guilt than innocence. See Merritt, 523 So. 2d at 574; Whitfield v. State, 452 So. 2d 548 (Fla.1984). However, “when a suspect endeavors to evade prosecution by flight, such fact may be shown in evidence as one of the circumstances from which guilt may be inferred.” Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666, 670 (Fla.1975). This rule is consistent with the supreme court's opinion in Fenelon v. State, 594 So. 2d 292, 294-95 (Fla.1992) where it held that it is improper for the trial court to give a jury instruction on flight when evidence of flight has been properly admitted. Accordingly, the supreme court in Fenelon did not prohibit the admission 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 1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 776 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…endant is an accomplice, he must be treated as a principal, ie., as if he had done all of the things the other person did. Constructive or vicarious possession8 of a firearm is sufficient to support a conviction involving a firearm. Jacobs v. State, 742 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Ellis v. State, 733 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Lewis v. State, 625 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The second special instruction quoted above does not appear to be necessary in this case. The evidence established that the…
-
Mincey v. Fla. Comm'n Offender on Review (Union County) (M.D. Fla. 2024)…oted in State v. St. Jean, supra, it is hard to imagine any other motivation of the Petitioner, other than to avoid the consequences of his complicity, that compelled him to repeatedly attempt to leave. See also, Jacobs v. State, 742 So. 2d 333, 334 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1999) (Recognizing the significance of the defendant's flight in a constructive possession analysis after a jointly occupied vehicle he was driving was found to contain a firearm.). See also, Green v. State, 602 So…
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1983)
- Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1981)
- King Anthony Green v. State, 594 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1992)
- State v. Young, 217 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1968)
- Will Blackwell and Robert Blackwell v. The State of Floirda, 79 Fla. 709 (Fla. 1920)
- Simkins Indus., Inc. v. Moreira, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1975)
- Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1975)
- Whitfield v. State, 452 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1984)
- In re Florida BAR, 108 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1959)
- Clevent D. Wilcox v. State, 522 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)