Copeland v. State
543 So. 2d 450, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1277, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2884, 1989 WL 53356
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Copeland v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 566 So. 2d 856 →
Opinion
The appellant was convicted by a jury for possession of cocaine. In our view, the state failed to present sufficient, independent proof to establish that the defendant was in constructive possession of the cocaine. See Hively v. State, 336 So.2d 127 [451]*451(Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Therefore, the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.
Accordingly, we reverse the appellant’s conviction and sentence and remand with instructions to discharge the appellant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Copeland v. State, 543 So. 2d 450, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1277, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2884, 1989 WL 53356 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).
543 So. 2d 450 (Copeland v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hively v. State
336 So. 2d 127 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)