CHASTITY ANNE CRUZ, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that possession of contraband in a jointly occupied vehicle requires independent proof of knowledge and dominion, which the State failed to present for one count. The court affirmed the conviction for sale of cocaine.
Chastity Cruz was convicted of sale and possession of cocaine. The possession charge stemmed from a crack pipe found on the floorboard of the car she …
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 Jointly Occupied Vehicle cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Chastity Cruz (“Cruz”) appeals her conviction and sentence for sale' of cocaine (Count I) and the possession of cocaine (Count II). She argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence and the trial court erred in not granting her motions for judgment of acquittal. We affirm the conviction on Count I without further comment but reverse as to Count II.
The State charged Cruz in Count II with the possession of a crack pipe that contained cocaine residue. Police found the pipe on the floorboard of the car Cruz was driving at the time law enforcement stopped her. At trial, the officer testified that the pipe was in plain view, only four to five inches from the gas pedal. The testimony also showed that a passenger was in the car at the-time of the stop.
The State suggests that since the pipe was so close to Cruz’s feet, she had dominion and control, and that since it was in plain view, she had the requisite knowledge. However, when the contraband is not on the actual person but is found in a jointly occupied vehicle, knowledge and ability to control cannot be inferred but must be shown by independent proof. See E.A.M. v. State, 684 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The State failed to present such proof, and the trial, court erred in failing to grant the motion for judgment of acquittal as to Count II.
We affirm as to Count I and reverse as to Count II.
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., Concur,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Hargrove v. State, 928 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…contraband cannot be inferred solely from the defendant’s proximity to the contraband in .a jointly-occupied vehicle; rather, the State must present independent proof of the defendant’s knowledge and ability to control the contraband. Cruz v. State, 744 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); E.A.M. v. State, 684 So. 2d 283, 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Here, the State’s sole proof of Har-grove’s constructive possession was the pipe’s proximity to the seat that he had been occupying in the car. Even if we accept the…
-
K.A.K. v. State, 885 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…inctive factually or dispositive of the case because the compartment was open to all at the time the deputy searched. No more evidence tied K.A.K. to the items inside the glove compartment than to the marijuana and the glass pipe. Cf. Cruz v. State, 744 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that dominion and control were not proven where a pipe was found in plain view on the floorboard of the car near the gas pedal while the defendant was driving with a passenger); Smith, 687 So. 2d 875 (holding that constru…
-
Watson v. State, 961 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…cause Ras did not have exclusive control of the area, it may not be [*1118] inferred that he had control of the cocaine without other incriminating statements or circumstances which tend to support that inference.” Id. at 25; see also Cruz v. State, 744 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (ruling that the State failed to prove the element of control when the only evidence on that point was that drug paraphernalia was found four to five inches from the convicted driver’s foot); Smith v. State, 687 So. 2d 875, 8…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- E.A.M. v. State, 684 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)