State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2021–2022 · …a trial court should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the state, fails to establish a prima facie case of guilt. at p. 59 ✓
52 citation events (52 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Laney v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Polk County) (flmd, 2025-05-30)
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Laney v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Polk County)
M.D. Fla. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in moving for a judgment of acquittal, a defendant admits not only the facts stated in the evidence, but also every reasonable conclusion favorable to the state that the fact finder might fairly infer from the evidence.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Guzman v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Polk County)
M.D. Fla. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a trial court should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the state, fails to establish a prima facie case of guilt.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Coleman v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Hillsborough County)
M.D. Fla. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a trial court should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the state, fails to establish a prima facie case of guilt.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Carrington v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Hillsborough County)
M.D. Fla. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a trial court should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the state, fails to establish a prima facie case of guilt.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Bradley v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pasco County)
M.D. Fla. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a trial court should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the state, fails to establish a prima facie case of guilt.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Washington v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
M.D. Fla. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a trial court should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the state, fails to establish a prima facie case of guilt.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evans v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County)
M.D. Fla. · 2023 · confidence medium
In this case, Mr. Evans was the sole occupant and driver of the Buick Riviera when he exited the car and fled on foot.1 “As the sole occupant and driver of the vehicle, [Mr. Evans] had exclusive possession of the vehicle[,] creating an inference of his dominion and control over the contraband contained therein.” State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MICHAEL BARTOLONE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
“A trial court should not grant a motion for [JOA] ‘unless the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, fails to establish a prima facie case of guilt.’” State v. Lee, 230 So. 3d 886, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MICHAEL BARTOLONE v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
“A trial court should not grant a motion for [JOA] ‘unless the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, fails to establish a prima facie case of guilt.’” State v. Lee, 230 So. 3d 886, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nelson Zaldivar Anzardo v. U.S. Attorney General
11th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
See Sandifer v. State, 851 So. 2d 788, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also, e.g., J.J.N. v. State, 877 So. 2d 11 USCA11 Case: 17-15441 Date Filed: 11/05/2020 Page: 12 of 17 806, 809 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56, 58-59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Gordon v. State, 858 So. 2d 359 , 359-60 & n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kenneth Lee Manhard v. State of Florida (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
“A trial court should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, fails to establish a prima facie case of guilt.” State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
cited Cited as authority (rule) David Elliott Moran v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Charles T. Newcomb v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Darrell Von Young v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
“If the State has presented competent evidence to establish every element of the crime, then judgment of acquittal is improper.” McCray v. State, 171 So. 3d 831, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citing State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) James Alfred Jacobsen v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) TAKENDRICK CAMPBELL v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
And "[w]hile the presumption of guilty knowledge may be overcome by evidence tending to show a lack of guilty knowledge, merely demonstrating that others theoretically had access to the automobile would not necessarily negate the presumption." Odom, 862 So. 2d at 59 (emphasis added); cf. Edwards, 186 So. 3d at 1Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). -8- 1072 (stating that when drugs are found in an area jointly possessed, the State is not entitled to the inference of knowledge and control).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF FLORIDA v. ALEXANDER LEE (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
“In moving for a judgment of acquittal, a defendant admits not only the facts stated in the evidence, but also every reasonable conclusion favorable to the State that the fact finder might fairly infer from the evidence.” State v. Odom, 862 So.2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cosio v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
See Pagan, 830 So.2d at 803 (“If, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction.” (citing Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 1999))); Nicholas v. State, 47 So.3d 297, 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (“The trial court should grant a judgment of acquittal if the State fails to present legally sufficient, evidence to establish each element of the crime charged.” (citing State v. Odom, 862 So.2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Poczatek v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
“A motion for judgment of acquittal is designed to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Odom, 862 So.2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing State v. Williams, 742 So.2d 509, 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Johnson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Appellate Analysis “In matters such as the present, which concern a trial court’s order granting a motion for judgment of acquittal entered after a jury’s verdict of guilt, this court conducts a de novo review of the record to determine whether sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict.” State v. Odom, 862 So.2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tucker v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Nicholas v. State, 47 So.3d 297, 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citing State v. Odom, 862 So.2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)). .
cited Cited as authority (rule) McCray v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
State v. Odom, 862 So.2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Perry v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
State v. Odom, 862 So.2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jenrette-Smith v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
“A motion for judgment of acquittal is designed to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Odom, 862 So.2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citing State v. Williams, 742 So.2d 509, 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nicholas v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
State v. Odom, 862 So.2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Boyd v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
A motion for a judgment of acquittal should not be granted "unless the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, fails to establish a prima facie case of guilt." State v. Odom, 862 So.2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lester v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
State v. Odom, 862 So.2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited "see" Kaseta v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Odom, 862 So. 2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
discussed Cited "see" Williams v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Odom, 862 So.2d 56, 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (“As the sole occupant and driver of the vehicle, Odom had exclusive possession of the vehicle creating an inference of his dominion and control over the contraband contained therein particularly since the contraband was found lodged between the driver’s seat and the console of the car.”) But because Ms. Williams had two passengers with her, the State is not entitled to the benefit of an inference of dominion and control.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Florida, Appellant,
v.
Marlon Deltwan ODOM, Appellee.
2D02-3270.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct 10, 2003.
862 So. 2d 56
Salcines.
Cited by 35 opinions  |  Published

[*58] Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jenny Scavino Sieg, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellee.

SALCINES, Judge.

The State appeals an order granting Marlon Deltwan Odom's motion for judgment of acquittal after a jury found him guilty of possession of cocaine.[1] The trial court erred in granting Odom's motion because the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict in light of the inferences or presumptions which arise from one's exclusive possession of an automobile in which illegal contraband is found. See Garcia v. State, 854 So.2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Hence, we reverse the order acquitting Odom of possession of cocaine.

Odom was found guilty, by a jury, of possession of cocaine as well as possession of marijuana. Following the reception of the verdict, Odom filed a motion entitled "Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict." The argument contained within his motion challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to withstand his motions for judgment of acquittal for possession of cocaine. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.380. The trial court granted Odom's motion and acquitted him of possession of cocaine.

On appeal, the parties maintain that the present case concerned Odom's constructive, rather than actual, possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001). The cocaine was found in an automobile in a closed black film cannister lodged between the driver's seat and the console of the car. Odom was the driver and the sole occupant of the automobile when it was stopped.[2]

In order to establish constructive possession, the State had to prove that Odom, whose offense took place on October 2, 2001, had dominion and control over[*59] the contraband, had knowledge that the contraband was within his presence, and had knowledge of the illicit nature of the contraband. 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). As the sole occupant and driver of the vehicle, Odom had exclusive possession of the vehicle creating an inference of his dominion and control over the contraband contained therein particularly since the contraband was found lodged between the driver's seat and the console of the car. See Lee, 835 So.2d at 1180. Likewise, knowledge of the presence of the contraband and its illicit nature could be inferred or presumed because Odom was in exclusive possession of the automobile when it was stopped. See Garcia, 854 So.2d at 762-64; see also Lee, 835 So.2d at 1180.

At trial, Odom did not present any witnesses. Odom developed his defense theory during cross-examination of the State's witnesses. Odom's defense was based on the assertion that the automobile in which the drugs were found was a rental vehicle for which his sister had signed the lease as a co-lessee. While the presumption of guilty knowledge may be overcome by evidence tending to show a lack of guilty knowledge, merely demonstrating that others theoretically had access to the automobile would not necessarily negate the presumption. See Garcia, 854 So.2d at 762-64. Indeed, such evidence appears to present a jury question concerning whether the possession was exclusive. See Parker v. State, 641 So.2d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). In the present case, the jury rejected Odom's defense theory. 762-64

In matters such as the present, which concern a trial court's order granting a motion for judgment of acquittal entered after a jury's verdict of guilt, this court conducts a de novo review of the record to determine whether sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict. See State v. Powell, 636 So.2d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (finding competent substantial evidence in the record to support the jury's guilty verdict, the court reversed order granting motion for judgment of acquittal).

A motion for judgment of acquittal is designed to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Williams, 742 So.2d 509, 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). If the State presents competent evidence to establish each element of the crime, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be denied. Id. at 510. A trial court should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, fails to establish a prima facie case of guilt. Id.

In moving for a judgment of acquittal, a defendant admits not only the facts stated in the evidence, but also every reasonable conclusion favorable to the State that the fact finder might fairly infer from the evidence. Williams, 742 So.2d at 510 (citing Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974)). It is the trial judge's task to review the evidence to determine the presence or absence of competent evidence from which the jury could infer guilt to the exclusion of all other inferences. Williams, 742 So.2d at 510 (citing State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla.1989)).

In the present case, there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilt. Thus, the trial court erred in granting[*60] Odom's motion for judgment of acquittal for possession of cocaine.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

1 Odom was also found guilty of possession of marijuana but he does not challenge his conviction for that offense.
2 Odom was immediately arrested, after the vehicle was stopped, pursuant to an outstanding warrant apparently on an unrelated matter. The search of the vehicle was conducted incident to his arrest.