From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Feb 2, 1990
556 So. 2d 490 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Summary

In King v. State, 556 So.2d 490, (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), the court stated that the only evidence the state presented to prove the defendant had constructive possession of the cocaine was the fact that he had accompanied a codefendant as a passenger in the car.

Summary of this case from Gueits v. State

Opinion

No. 89-327.

February 2, 1990.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Escambia County, Nicholas Geeker, J.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Edward C. Hill, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.


Emanuel Hurbert King appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine in violation of section 893.135(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes, contending that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to prove he was in constructive possession of the cocaine found in the locked trunk of the car in which he was riding as a passenger. The state was required to prove three essential elements to establish King's constructive possession of the cocaine:

(1) his dominion and control over the contraband;

(2) his knowledge that the contraband was within his presence; and

(3) his knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband.
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); Corson v. State, 527 So.2d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). The record indicates that the only evidence the state presented to prove King had constructive possession of the cocaine was the fact that he had accompanied co-defendant Rice as a passenger in the car. This evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for trafficking. Harris v. State, 501 So.2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Because the record clearly supports the conclusion that the state's evidence was legally insufficient to establish the elements of the trafficking offense charged, the conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to discharge the defendant. See Rita v. State, 470 So.2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

THOMPSON, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

King v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Feb 2, 1990
556 So. 2d 490 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

In King v. State, 556 So.2d 490, (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), the court stated that the only evidence the state presented to prove the defendant had constructive possession of the cocaine was the fact that he had accompanied a codefendant as a passenger in the car.

Summary of this case from Gueits v. State
Case details for

King v. State

Case Details

Full title:EMANUEL HURBERT KING, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Feb 2, 1990

Citations

556 So. 2d 490 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

Rogers v. State

Agee v. State, 522 So.2d 1044 (Fla.2d DCA 1988); see Bass v. United States, 326 F.2d 884 (8th Cir.), cert.…

Gueits v. State

All the admissible evidence against the defendant showed was that he was seated behind the steering wheel of…