DAVID E. MCKEE AND CAROLYN MCKEE, APPELLANTS,
v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, 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 the State failed to present sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for directed verdict, as it did not demonstrate actual knowledge of the contraband by the appellants.
Appellants were convicted of drug offenses based on contraband found in rented motel facilities. The State's evidence was circumstantial, showing the …
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 Possession Of Lsd cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants were charged and convicted of the possession of marijuana, possession of LSD and possession of narcotic paraphernalia, and sentenced accordingly. This appeal ensued, the principal point relied on for reversal being the sufficiency of the State’s evidence to withstand the defendants’ motion for directed verdict at the close of the State’s case.
The State’s evidence was circumstantial and based on the fact that the appellant, Kirtley, had rented motel facilities wherein marijuana, LSD and narcotic paraphernalia were found. The appellant, Perez, was allegedly living with Kirtley. The State’s evidence in chief disclosed that even though Kirtley may have registered for the motel accommodations, these were not in his exclusive possession; and even though the items upon which the convictions were based were found therein, it was incumbent upon the State to show actual knowledge by Kirtley and/or Perez of the existence of the contraband. See: Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 117; Markman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So.2d 486; Langdon v. State, Fla.App. 1970, 235 So.2d 321. This not having been done, the State failed to make a prima fa-cie case and the motion for directed verdict should have been granted.
It was clear from the State’s evidence in chief that there had been a number of people in and out of the premises involved on the day in question; none of the evidence placed the appellants in the premises; and the evidence totally failed to demonstrate any actual knowledge of the contraband on the premises. Therefore, the judgments and convictions be and the same are hereby set aside, with directions to discharge the defendants in the trial court.
Reversed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffin v. State, 276 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…seen entering and leaving the house. The state’s evidence fails to show that the defendant was in the exclusive possession and control of the house either at the time of the raid or at any time prior thereto. Compare Kirtley v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 282. It is true that there was unrebutted testimony to the effect that the defendant directed the officers to get off his property, hut this is not an admission of exclusive possession. The problem of proving knowledge of the presence of drugs in circu…1 / 2
-
Camp v. State, 293 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…ond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the presence of narcotic drugs on premises occupied and controlled by him, either exclusively or jointly with others”. Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla.App.1967), and Kirtley v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 282. The material allegation in the information, i. e. possession, was disputed by the defendant’s sworn motion sufficiently, so as to overcome the prima facie case established by the information; and unless traversed by the state in accordance with Rul…
-
Smith v. State, 276 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…here the contraband was found so as to put him in exclusive possession and control of the premises containing the contraband and the state does not contend otherwise. See Torres v. State, Fla.App.1971, 253 So. 2d 450; Kirtley v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So. 2d 282; Langdon v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 321; Markman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 486; Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 117; Spataro v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 873. The evidence mentioned two chests of drawers. The marijua…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Ira Dennis Markman v. State, 210 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Langdon v. State, 235 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)