Harrington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harrington v. State

980 So. 2d 563, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 5915, 2008 WL 1827422

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 25, 2008

DocketNo. 5D07-840

StatusPublished

This text of 980 So. 2d 563 (Harrington 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

Harrington v. State, 980 So. 2d 563, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 5915, 2008 WL 1827422 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse Appellant’s convictions for trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of paraphernalia. As for the trafficking conviction, the State failed to offer independent proof that Appellant, a joint occupant of the house in which the drugs were located, had knowledge of and ability to control the drugs. Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250 (Fla.1983). No direct evidence was introduced to prove that Appellant had access to the locked safe in which the drugs were located or had knowledge of its contents. The circumstantial evidence offered was not inconsistent with Appellant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Wagner v. State, 950 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Muwwakil v. State, 435 So.2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). As for the paraphernalia charge, the evidence was insufficient to show that either of these ordinary items had been used, or were intended for use, for illicit purposes.

REVERSED.

ORFINGER, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse Appellant’s convictions for trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of paraphernalia. As for the trafficking conviction, the State failed to offer independent proof that Appellant, a joint occupant of the house in which the drugs were located, had knowledge of and ability to control the drugs. Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250 (Fla.1983). No direct evidence was introduced to prove that Appellant had access to the locked safe in which the drugs were located or had knowledge of its contents. The circumstantial evidence offered was not inconsistent with Appellant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Wagner v. State, 950 So.2d 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Muwwakil v. State, 435 So.2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). As for the paraphernalia charge, the evidence was insufficient to show that either of these ordinary items had been used, or were intended for use, for illicit purposes.

REVERSED.

ORFINGER, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

980 So. 2d 563, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 5915, 2008 WL 1827422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrington-v-state-fladistctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack