IN THE INTEREST OF D. J., A CHILD, 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.
D.J., a minor, was adjudicated delinquent and committed to the Division of Youth Services based on possession of marijuana found in a vehicle she occupied. The court reversed, holding that the circumstantial evidence—marijuana found in a vehicle where D.J. was a passenger with no actual possession—was insufficient to prove her knowledge of the drugs' presence or control over them.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the adjudication of delinquency. Where a drug is found in premises in joint possession rather than exclusive possession of the accused, knowledge of the drug's presence and ability to control it must be established by proof and cannot be inferred. The circumstantial evidence here supports reasonable hypotheses of innocence and therefore fails to meet the required standard.
[1] Knowledge of the presence of a controlled substance and the ability to maintain control over it must be established by proof when possession is joint, not exclusive.
[2] Circumstantial evidence is insufficient for conviction if it is not consistent with guilt, inconsistent with innocence, and does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis e…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“if the premises on which the drugs are found is not in the exclusive but only in the joint possession of the accused, knowledge of the drug's presence on the premises and the ability to maintain control over it by the accused will not be inferred but must be established by proof.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for drug possession cases involving jointly-possessed premises
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 16, 1974, at approximately 12:10 a.m., a police officer stopped a vehicle occupied by four persons, including 14-year-old D.J., who sat in th…
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 Sufficiency Of Circumstantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PARHAM, Associate Judge.
This is a timely appeal by the defendant, D. J., a minor, from an order adjudging her to be a delinquent child and committing her to the custody of the Division of Youth Services.
On April 16, 1974, at about 12:10 a. m., an officer stopped a vehicle occupied by four persons, including appellant, who was sitting in right front seat. The officer smelled the odor of burning marijuana emanating from the vehicle as he approached same. With the aid of a flashlight, he saw and seized: a half burned marijuana cigarette on the floor next to appellant; another half burned marijuana cigarette on the floor by the driver’s seat; a marijuana cigarette in the ashtray; a marijuana cigarette in the glove compartment, none of which were burning; and numerous marijuana seeds in the driver’s seat and on the console between the two front bucket seats. The officer arrested all the occupants upon a charge of possession of a controlled substance. The officer further testified that he had observed the vehicle and its occupants for approximately ten minutes prior to the arrests. His sole immediate clue, in the middle of the night, to any presence of marijuana was the smell described above. According to the evidence, the defendant at no time had actual possession of any marijuana.
The question on appeal is whether the above stated facts are sufficient to sustain the adjudication of delinquency and subsequent commitment.
It is well established that if the premises on which the drugs are found is not in the exclusive but only in the joint possession of the accused, knowledge of the drug’s presence on the premises and the ability to maintain control over it by the accused will not be inferred but must be established by proof. Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 117, 120; Markman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 486, 487; Harris v. State, Fla.App.1974, 307 So. 2d 218, 220.
The only evidence in this case with which the State could prove knowledge of the presence of marijuana by the defendant is as quoted above. This is clearly circumstantial evidence, and in order for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction, it must be “ . . . consistent with the accused’s guilt, inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. Brown v. State, 1937, 127 Fla. 225, 172 So. 921; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So. 2d 423, 424; Gaetano v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 273 So. 2d 84, 86; Whitehead v. State, Fla.App. 1973, 273 So. 2d 146, 147, 148; Harris v. State, Fla.App.1974, 307 So. 2d 218, 220.
We are of the opinion that the facts subjudice are supportive of reasonable hypotheses of the defendant’s innocence and, for this reason, the Adjudication of Delinquency and Order of Commitment to Division of Youth Services hereby are reversed, with directions to discharge the appellant.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Murphy v. State, 511 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…istent with the accused’s guilt, inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. Harvey v. State, 390 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Manning v. State, 355 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), D.J. v. State, 330 So. 2d 35, 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Townsend v. State, 330 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). There is no evidence, other than appellant’s joint possession of the car for a short period of time that supports a finding of knowledge of the presence of the contraba…
-
Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…cert, denied, 361 So. 2d 835 (Fla.1978) (state's evidence deemed insufficient to establish criminal intent so as to make defendant an aider and abetter in an attempted break-in of a warehouse; attempted burglary conviction reversed); D.J. v. State, 330 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (state's evidence deemed insufficient to establish guilty knowledge of the presence of certain marijuana taken from car jointly occupied by juvenile and others; delinquency adjudication based on a finding of marijuana possession…
-
Skelton v. State, 609 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…336 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (bag containing marijuana found in close proximity to defendant; pipe on console between automobile’s bucket seats; two roaches and a roach clip in the automobile ashtray; and the odor of marijuana); D.J. v. State, 330 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (odor of burning marijuana; half burned marijuana cigarette on floor next to appellant; another half burned marijuana cigarette on the floor by the driver’s seat; marijuana cigarette in ashtray; marijuana cigarette in glove compa…
Previewing 3 of 12 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)
- Harris v. State, 307 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Fayete Brown v. State, 127 Fla. 225 (Fla. 1937)
- Whitehead v. State, 273 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Miller v. State, 270 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Gaetano v. State, 273 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)