green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
38.4 score
“we hold, therefore, that joint occupancy, with or without ownership of the premises, where contraband is discovered in plain view in the presence of the owner or occupant is sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession.”
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Willie Lawrence Robinson, Jr. v. State of Florida
we hold, therefore, that joint occupancy, with or without ownership of the premises, where contraband is discovered in plain view in the presence of the owner or occupant is sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Santiago v. State
oint occupancy, with or without ownership of the premises, where contraband is discovered in plain view in the presence of the owner or occupant is sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mincey v. Florida Commission Offender on Review (Union County)
Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Michael Anthony Conage
In the interest of completeness, we note that, four years before the Legislature added trafficking by purchase in 1987, our Court held that “[t]o establish constructive possession, the state must show that the accused had dominion and control over the contraband, knew the contraband was within his presence, and knew of the illicit nature of the contraband.” Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983), superseded in part by statute, ch. 2002-258, § 1, Laws of Fla. - 19 - USCA11 Case: 17-13975 Date Filed: 09/30/2022 Page: 23 of 26 specialized definition saying that a purchase is complet…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Anthony Conage v. United States
In the interest of completeness, we note that, four years before the Legislature added trafficking by purchase in 1987, our Court held that “[t]o establish constructive possession, the state must show that the accused had dominion and control over the contraband, knew the contraband was within his presence, and knew of the illicit nature of the contraband.” Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983), superseded in part by statute, ch. 2002-258, § 1, Laws of Fla. - 19 - specialized definition saying that a purchase is complete upon payment, if the Legislature wishes to do so.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
S. S., A Child v. State of Florida
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Citing Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983), this Court found “that the evidence that cocaine in a plastic baggie was in plain view on the counter top in the kitchen, a common area of appellant’s house over which she had control, was sufficient to create a question for the trier of fact as to constructive possession of the cocaine.” Id. at 1309 (emphasis added).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
S. S., A Child v. State of Florida
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Citing Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983), this Court found “that the evidence that cocaine in a plastic baggie was in plain view on the counter top in the kitchen, a common area of appellant’s house over which she had control, was sufficient to create a question for the trier of fact as to constructive possession of the cocaine.” Id. at 1309 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Edwards v. State
Where the area in which drugs are found is in joint, rather than exclusive possession,. a defendant’s “knowledge of the contraband’s presence and the ability to control it will not be inferred from the ownership but must be established by-independent proof.” Jackson, 995 So.2d at 539 (quoting Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Knight v. State
Evans v. State, 32 So.3d 188, 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
R.C.R., a Child v. State of Florida
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. State
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983); Mitchell v. State, 958 So.2d 496, 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jennings v. State
Brown, v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); Jiles v. State, 984 So.2d 622, 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Martoral v. State, 946 So.2d 1240, 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ford v. State
Where contraband is discovered in jointly occupied premises, the defendant’s “knowledge of the contraband’s presence and the ability to control it will not be inferred from the ownership [of the premises] but must be established by independent proof.” Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983); see also Diaz v. State, 884 So.2d 387, 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing constructive possession conviction when drugs were found in shoe box accessible to three people and State failed to present independent proof of defendant’s knowledge).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Odom
(2×)
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Evans v. State
(2×)
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
RDD, JR. v. State
In a constructive possession case, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “the accused had dominion and control over the contraband, knew the contraband was within his presence, and knew of the illicit nature of the contraband.” Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor v. State
To prove constructive possession of the 29.2 pounds of cannabis, the State had to establish that Appellant knew of the presence of the contraband on or about his premises and had the ability to maintain dominion and control over it. § 893.101(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2006) (eliminating the defendant’s knowledge of the illicit nature of a controlled substance as an element of the offense the State is required to prove, and designating the lack of such knowledge as an affirmative defense to the offenses in the chapter); Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983); Norman v. State, 826 So.2d 440 …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. State
"If the premises where contraband is found is in joint, rather than exclusive, possession of a defendant, however, knowledge of the contraband's presence and the ability to control it will not be inferred from the ownership but must be established by independent proof." Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983) (citing Wale v. State, 397 So.2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), and Frank v. State, 199 So.2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Duncan v. State
(2×)
State v. Reese, 774 So.2d 948, 949-50 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Johnson v. State, 456 So.2d 923, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). "[J]oint occupancy, with or without ownership of the premises, where contraband is discovered in plain view in the presence of the owner or occupant is sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession." Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jiles v. State
Although an inference that a defendant knew of the presence of contraband does not arise from the defendant's "[m]ere proximity to [the] contraband," Pena v. State, 465 So.2d 1386, 1388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the location of contraband in plain view of the defendant is sufficient to establish the knowledge element of constructive possession, see Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983); see also Martoral v. State, 946 So.2d 1240, 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding that knowledge element was established where "marijuana was in a compartment in the dash in plain view" of the defendant who was t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robinson v. State
When possession of the premises where the contraband is found is joint rather than exclusive, "knowledge of the contraband's presence and the ability to control it will not be inferred from the ownership but must be established by independent proof." Mitchell v. State, 958 So.2d 496, 500 (Fla. 4th DCA) (citing Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983)), review denied, 969 So.2d 1015 (Fla. 2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Edmond v. State
Id. at 1179 (citing Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
De La Cruz v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
In order to do so, the State had to establish that De La Cruz knew the cocaine was in his presence. [1] See Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983); Loyd v. State, 677 So.2d 76, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Scruggs v. State
Earle v. State, 745 So.2d 1087, 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(citing Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983) and Dupree v. State, 705 So.2d 90, 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniels v. State
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983)(citing Wale v. State, 397 So.2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
EHA v. State
"Constructive possession exists where a defendant does not have physical possession of contraband but (1) knows it is within his presence, (2) has the ability to maintain control over it, and (3) knows of the illicit nature of the contraband." Earle v. State, 745 So.2d 1087, 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(citing Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983), and Dupree v. *1119 State, 705 So.2d 90, 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
E.H.A. v. State
“Constructive possession exists where a defendant does not have physical possession of contraband but (1) knows it is within his presence, (2) has the ability to maintain control over it, and (3) knows of the illicit nature of the contraband.” Earle v. State, 745 So.2d 1087, 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(citing Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983), and Dupree v. State, 705 So.2d 90, 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gaines v. State
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dupree v. State
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983)(citing Wale v. State, 397 So.2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chicone v. State
We accepted jurisdiction based upon conflict with numerous decisions, including: Skelton v. State, 609 So.2d 716, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Moffatt v. State, 583 So.2d 779, 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Kuhn v. State, 439 So.2d 291, 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); and Wale v. State, 397 So.2d 738, 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Green v. State
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gartrell v. State
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cordero v. State
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.), cert. den., 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983), quoting Wale v. State, 397 So.2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cook v. State
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dubose v. State
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); Wade v. State, 558 So.2d 107, 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Frank v. State, 199 So.2d 117, 120-21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wade v. State
In Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, Brown v. Florida, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983), the Supreme Court held that: *108 "Constructive possession exists where the accused without physical possession of the controlled substance knows of its presence on or about his premises and has the ability to maintain control over said controlled substance." Hively v. State, 336 So.2d 127, 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Campbell v. State
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); Elias v. State, 526 So.2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Julian v. State
Under Florida law, “constructive possession exists where the accused without physical possession of the controlled substance knows of its presence on or about his premises and has the ability to maintain control over said controlled substance.” Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983), ce rt. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983), quoting Hively v. State, 336 So.2d 127, 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Allbaugh
In this respect we agree with the reasoning of the Florida Supreme Court in a similar case, Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 (1983): [Defendant] claims that he could be convicted of constructive possession on the instant facts only if the jury impermissibly piled inference upon inference.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. State
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983); cert. denied, Brown v. Florida, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ellis v. State
The controlling case is Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983), wherein the Florida Supreme Court expressly held "that joint occupancy, with or without ownership of the premises, where contraband is discovered in plain view in the presence of the owner or occupant is sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession." We agree, however, that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of Lena Ellis for the offense of possession of drug paraphernalia.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Agee v. State
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.) cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Torres v. State
"Constructive possession exists where the accused without physical possession of the controlled substance knows of its presence on or about his premises and has the ability to maintain control over said controlled substance." Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.) (quoting Hively, 336 So.2d at 129 ), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 *80 (1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roberts v. State
Constructive possession similarly requires proof of control over the property: "`Constructive possession exists where the accused without physical possession of the controlled substance knows of its presence on or about his premises and has the ability to maintain control over said controlled substance.' To establish constructive possession, the state must show that the accused had dominion and control over the contraband, knew the contraband was within his presence, and knew of the illicit nature of the contraband." Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983) (quoting Hively v. State, 336 …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Forehand v. School Bd. of Washington County
We consider that the hearing officer correctly followed the rule, used in criminal cases, requiring that "[i]f the premises where contraband is found is in joint, rather than exclusive, possession ..., knowledge of the contraband's presence and the ability to control it will not be inferred from the ownership but must be established by independent proof." Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209 , 103 S.Ct. 3541 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983) (e.s.); Rita v. State, 470 So.2d 80, 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Kresbach v. State, 462 So.2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
James Frederick BROWN, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
McDonald.
Cited by 180 opinions | Published
[*251] Jane Kreusler-Walsh, and Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
McDONALD, Justice.
In Brown v. State, 412 So.2d 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), the district court certified the following questions to this Court:
1. DOES OWNERSHIP AND JOINT OCCUPANCY OF A PREMISES WHERE ILLEGAL DRUGS ARE DISCOVERED IN PLAIN VIEW, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE OWNER, CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AS TO THE OWNER OR AS TO A LESSEE UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES?
2. WHERE TWO OR MORE PERSONS JOINTLY OCCUPY PREMISES AND ILLEGAL DRUGS ARE DISCOVERED IN PLAIN VIEW, IN THEIR PRESENCE, IS SUCH PROOF, WITHOUT MORE, SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AS TO EACH PERSON?
Id. at 422. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. We answer the questions in the affirmative and approve the opinion of the district court.
Law enforcement officers searched Brown's house, in his presence, pursuant to a search warrant and found several pounds of marijuana and lesser quantities of hashish and PCP. The district court has detailed the locations of the contraband in the living room, the kitchen, the family room, the garage, and one bedroom[1] which was literally scattered throughout the house and much of which was in plain view. A jury convicted Brown of constructive possession of marijuana. On appeal he questioned whether the facts presented created a prima facie case of constructive possession. The district court found the facts presented at trial sufficient to create a jury question as to Brown's constructive possession of the marijuana, but certified the[*252] instant questions because of confusion in the applicable case law.[2]
"Constructive possession exists where the accused without physical possession of the controlled substance knows of its presence on or about his premises and has the ability to maintain control over said controlled substance." Hively v. State, 336 So.2d 127, 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). To establish constructive possession, the state must show that the accused had dominion and control over the contraband, knew the contraband was within his presence, and knew of the illicit nature of the contraband. Wale v. State, 397 So.2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). If the premises where contraband is found is in joint, rather than exclusive, possession of a defendant, however, knowledge of the contraband's presence and the ability to control it will not be inferred from the ownership but must be established by independent proof. Wale; Frank v. State, 199 So.2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967).
Brown claims that he could be convicted of constructive possession on the instant facts only if the jury impermissibly piled inference upon inference. We do not find, however, that the jury would have to have drawn an impermissible inference. In the instant case the knowledge element is met because the contraband was in plain view in common areas throughout the house. The dominion and control element is met because Brown, as resident owner of his home, had control over the common areas. Therefore, the elements of knowledge and control have been satisfied,[3] and, as the district court found, the facts presented at trial were sufficient to create a jury question as to constructive possession. Given the evidence presented, the jury could easily have rejected every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We answer the first question in the affirmative.
The second question, except for the element of ownership, is virtually identical to the first question, i.e., discovery of illegal drugs in plain view in the presence of the residents. We likewise answer the second question in the affirmative. This answer is consistent with prior cases such as Smith v. State, 279 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1973) (contraband in jointly occupied dresser drawer, not in plain view, knowledge not shown), and Taylor v. State, 319 So.2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (contraband found in plain view, but defendant, a guest, had no control over the premises).
We hold, therefore, that joint occupancy, with or without ownership of the premises, where contraband is discovered in plain view in the presence of the owner or occupant is sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession. The decision of the district court is approved.
It is so ordered.
ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
2 Judge Rivkind in dissent has noted numerous constructive possession cases. 412 So.2d at 424-25 n. 1 & n. 2.
3 There is no indication that Brown has ever argued that he did not know of the illicit nature of the seized drugs.