Lee v. State (2002)

green · 37 citation events across 4 courts. Showing the 19 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Yellow 1 Green 18

Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

200220142026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

yellow State v. Odom (2003)

But See · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: but see · 3 citations in this opinion

See Garcia, 854 So.2d at 762-64 ; but see Lee v. State, 835 So.2d 1177 , 1178 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (noting that the legislature enacted section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), which has prospective application, to clarify that knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance is not an element of possession but is, rather, an affirmative defense).

noting that the legislature enacted section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), which has prospective application, to clarify that knowledge of the illicit nature of the controlled substance is not an element of possession but is, rather, an affirmative defense

green STATE OF FLORIDA v. ALEXANDER LEE (2017)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 3 citations in this opinion

“If the premises on which the drugs are found are in the exclusive possession and control of the accused, knowledge of their presence on such premises coupled with his ability to maintain control, over them may be inferred.” Lee v. State, 835 So.2d 1177, 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citation omitted).

citation omitted

green Garcia v. State (2003)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 3 citations in this opinion

See Starling v. State, 842 So.2d 992, 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding that failure to give guilty knowledge instruction was not fundamental error where "[t]he only issue raised during trial was that [defendant] was not the person who sold the cocaine"); Davis, 839 So.2d at 735 (holding that failure to give guilty knowledge instruction was not fundamental error in case where "the only position taken by the defendant was that he was not the person who sold the cocaine to the …

holding that failure to give guilty knowledge instruction was not fundamental error in drug possession case

green Santiago v. Florida Department of Corrections (2023)

Rule Authority · M.D. Fla. · 2 citations in this opinion

Notably under Florida law, “[a]n inference of knowledge may be drawn in cases of exclusive constructive possession, establishing the requisite nexus.” Lee v. State, 835 So. 2d 1177, 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

green Edmond v. State (2007)

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

The Law of Constructive Possession To establish constructive possession, the State must prove (1) that the *346 defendant had "dominion and control over the contraband" and (2) that the defendant had "knowledge the contraband was within his presence." Lee v. State, 835 So.2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). [1] The defendant's knowledge of the presence of the drugs will be inferred if the premises where the drugs are found are in the exclusive possession of the defendant.

green Rashad Darnele Gibson v. State of Florida (2025)

Quote Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: cf.

Cf. Lee v. State, 835 So. 2d 1177, 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“Lee’s presence, as driver and sole occupant of the vehicle at the time of his arrest, is sufficient to show he exclusively possessed the vehicle, creating an inference of his dominion and control and guilty knowledge of the marijuana.”).

“Lee’s presence, as driver and sole occupant of the vehicle at the time of his arrest, is sufficient to show he exclusively possessed the vehicle, creating an inference of his dominion and control and guilty knowledge of the marijuana.”

green R.C.R., a Child v. State of Florida (2015)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

In the possession context, we have construed the term “exclusive” to mean “vested in one person alone.” Lee v. State, 835 So.2d 1177, 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

green Ylomon v. State (2011)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Where the state prosecutes a defendant for possession of drugs on a constructive possession theory, the state must prove that the defendant had: “(1) dominion and control over the contraband, (2) knowledge the contraband was within his presence, and (3) knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband.” Lee v. State, 835 So.2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

green Duncan v. State (2008)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Edmond v. State, 963 So.2d 344, 345-46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing Lee v. State, 835 So.2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)).

green Mitchell v. State (2007)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

In the context of contraband possession, we have construed exclusive possession to mean "vested in one person alone." See Lee v. State, 835 So.2d 1177, 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

green Holcomb v. State (2007)

Quote Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Lee v. State, 835 So.2d 1177, 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ("The inference that may be drawn from sole occupancy of a vehicle in which contraband is found, without more, is sufficient to prove a prima facie case of [constructive] possession.").

"The inference that may be drawn from sole occupancy of a vehicle in which contraband is found, without more, is sufficient to prove a prima facie case of [constructive] possession."

green Thevenin v. Bradshaw (2024)

Cited · S.D. Fla. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See id.

green TAKENDRICK CAMPBELL v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2018)

Cited (see also) · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see also

Odom, 862 So. 2d at 59 ; see also State v. Lee, 230 So. 3d 886, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (" 'If the premises on which the drugs are found are in the exclusive possession and control of the accused, knowledge of their presence on such premises coupled with his ability to maintain control over them may be inferred.' This rebuttable inference stands even when the [S]tate offers no evidence of how the defendant came to possess the vehicle in which drugs were found." (quoting Lee …

green Sinclair v. State (2011)