Harris v. State (2007)

green · 21 citation events across 3 courts. Showing the 16 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 16

Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

200720162026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green McKinzie v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (2008)

Rule Authority · 11th Cir.

“The purpose of a motion for judgment of acquittal is to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented by the [Sjtate.” Harris v. State, 954 So.2d 1260, 1261 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2007).

green Thames v. State (2017)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion

Cf. J.S.M. v. State, 944 So. 2d 1143, 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that the State had failed to prove that the defendant had dominion and control over contraband because there was no evidence that he was an occupant of a hotel room rather than a guest at a party); Harris v. State, 954 So. 2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (holding that a mere visitor to a residence did not have dominion and control over contraband found in the residence where the visitor "was neither an …

holding that a mere visitor to a residence did not have dominion and control over contraband found in the residence where the visitor "was neither an owner nor an occupant of the premises"

green Marra v. State (2007)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion

Harris v. State, 954 So.2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

green MICHAEL BARTOLONE v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2021)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

A defendant has constructive possession where he “does not have actual, physical possession of the controlled substance, but knows of its presence on or about the premises, [and where he] has the ability to exercise and maintain control over the contraband.” Harris v. State, 954 So. 2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); see also Ubiles v. State, 23 So. 3d 1288, 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

green MICHAEL BARTOLONE v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2021)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

A defendant has constructive possession where he “does not have actual, physical possession of the controlled substance, but knows of its presence on or about the premises, [and where he] has the ability to exercise and maintain control over the contraband.” Harris v. State, 954 So. 2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); see Ubiles v. State, 23 So. 3d 1288, 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

green MICHAEL W. HANEY v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2018)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Accordingly, the standard jury instruction for the crime of possession of a controlled substance directs trial courts to provide the 2"Possession is actual when the contraband is (1) in the defendant's hand or on his person, (2) in a container in the defendant's hand or on his person, or (3) within the defendant's ' "ready reach" ' and the contraband is under his control." Sundin v. State, 27 So. 3d 675, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quoting Harris v. State, 954 So. 2d 1260, 1262 …

green Sanders v. State (2017)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

“Possession is actual when the contraband is (1) in the defendant’s hand or on his person, (2) in a container in the defendant’s hand or on his person, or (3) within the defendant’s ‘ready reach’ and the contraband is under his control.” Id. (quoting Harris v. State, 954 So.2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)).

green Session v. State (2016)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

See Smith v. State, 175 So.3d 900, 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Harris v. State, 954 So.2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Martoral v. State, 946 So.2d 1240, 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Hargrove v. State, 928 So.2d 1254, 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). 3 Those decisions set forth the two elements that the State must prove: first, the defendant knew the contraband was present, and second, that the defendant had the ability to exercise dominion or control over it.

green Smith v. State (2015)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Harris v. State, 954 So.2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

green Antoine v. State (2014)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Since “[t]he purpose of a motion for judgment of acquittal is to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented by the state,” Harris v. State, 954 So.2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (citing State v. Lalor, 842 So.2d 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)), the defendant making such a motion “admits the facts in evidence and every conclusion favorable to the adverse party that may be fairly and reasonably inferred from the evidence.” Richards v. State, 37 So.3d 925, 926 (Fla. 4th D…

citing State v. Lalor, 842 So.2d 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)

green Holland v. Tucker (2012)

Rule Authority · S.D. Fla.

Harris v. State, 954 So.2d 1260, 1261 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2007).

green Ford v. State (2011)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Possession is actual when the contraband is (1) in the defendant’s hand or on his person, (2) in a container in the defendant’s hand or on his person, or (8) within the defendant’s ‘ “ready reach” ’ and the contraband is under his control.” Sundin v. State, 27 So.3d 675, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quoting Harris v. State, 954 So.2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)).

green State v. Odom (2011)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Harris v. State, 954 So.2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

green Sundin v. State (2009)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Harris v. State, 954 So.2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

green Oliver v. State (2008)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Harris v. State, 954 So.2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

green Taylor v. State (2009)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see

However, “[t]he mere fact that some contraband was in plain view does not permit the inference that the defendant knew of the entire amount of contraband found upon a search .... ” Mitchell v. State, 958 So.2d 496, 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Robinson v. State, 975 So.2d 593, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); see Harris v. State, 954 So.2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Hill v. State, 873 So.2d 491, 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).