Goble v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Goble v. State

324 So. 2d 97, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 19001

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 7, 1975

DocketNos. 74-1288, 74-1289

StatusPublished

This text of 324 So. 2d 97 (Goble v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goble v. State, 324 So. 2d 97, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 19001 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

OWEN, Judge.

Appellants were jointly charged, tried and convicted for (1) possession of a controlled substance and (2) possession of drug paraphernalia, proscribed by Fla. Stat. §§ 893.13(1) (e) and 893.13(3) (a) (4) (1973) respectively.

There was no evidence of appellants’ actual possession of the controlled substance or the drug paraphernalia. The State’s case was based solely upon an attempt to prove appellants’ constructive possession.

The controlled substance and drug paraphernalia were found when a search pursuant to warrant was made of certain premises in the joint possession of the appellants and another. There was no direct evidence that either of the appellants had actual knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance or drug paraphernalia on the premises, nor was there sufficient evidence of incriminating statements and circumstances from which a jury might lawfully infer such knowledge by the appellants. Thus, the State’s evidence of possession was legally insufficient and it was error to deny the appellants’ motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case. Smith v. State, 279 So.2d 27 (Fla.1973); Willis v. State, 320 So.2d 823 (4th DCA Fla., opinion filed October 24, 1975); Smith v. State, 276 So.2d 91 (4th DCA Fla. 1973); Frank v. State, 199 So.2d 117 (1st DCA Fla. 1967).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instruction to discharge the appellants.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN, C. J., and ALDERMAN, JAMES E., Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OWEN, Judge.

Appellants were jointly charged, tried and convicted for (1) possession of a controlled substance and (2) possession of drug paraphernalia, proscribed by Fla. Stat. §§ 893.13(1) (e) and 893.13(3) (a) (4) (1973) respectively.

There was no evidence of appellants’ actual possession of the controlled substance or the drug paraphernalia. The State’s case was based solely upon an attempt to prove appellants’ constructive possession.

The controlled substance and drug paraphernalia were found when a search pursuant to warrant was made of certain premises in the joint possession of the appellants and another. There was no direct evidence that either of the appellants had actual knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance or drug paraphernalia on the premises, nor was there sufficient evidence of incriminating statements and circumstances from which a jury might lawfully infer such knowledge by the appellants. Thus, the State’s evidence of possession was legally insufficient and it was error to deny the appellants’ motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case. Smith v. State, 279 So.2d 27 (Fla.1973); Willis v. State, 320 So.2d 823 (4th DCA Fla., opinion filed October 24, 1975); Smith v. State, 276 So.2d 91 (4th DCA Fla. 1973); Frank v. State, 199 So.2d 117 (1st DCA Fla. 1967).

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instruction to discharge the appellants.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN, C. J., and ALDERMAN, JAMES E., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 So. 2d 97, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 19001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goble-v-state-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack