In the Interest of C.C.S. v. State
729 So. 2d 1016, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5313, 1999 WL 242435
Opinion
Reversed. See G.E.G. v. State, 417 So.2d 975, 977 (Fla.1982) (“[W]e hold that when a defendant is charged with possession of a controlled substance, that substance, if available, must be introduced into evidence” where a defendant objects to its nonintroduction.); Harris v. State, 647 So.2d 206, 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding that a defendant’s mere proximity to a small or trace amount of a controlled substance is not sufficient to establish constructive possession by one of several occupants of a car).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In the Interest of C.C.S. v. State, 729 So. 2d 1016, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5313, 1999 WL 242435 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).
729 So. 2d 1016 (In the Interest of C.C.S. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Harris v. State
647 So. 2d 206 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)