|
In the case of Gizaw vs. The State of Florida the second district court reversed defendant's convictions for the charges of possession of a motor vehicle to be used for the trafficking, sale, and/or manufacturing of a controlled substance; and possession of drug paraphernalia. The 2nd district court reversed and remanded with the instructions to discharge the defendant because the prosecution did not prove defendant's knowledge regarding the presence of the marijuana or her authority & control over the suitcase which contained cannabis. The evidence established that a sheriff's deputy stopped a car for speeding. The defendant, the driver, produced her driver's license. The passenger produced his identification & a criminal records check revealed the passenger was on probation for drug related convictions. The police officer radioed for backup & a 2nd officer responded. The 1st police officer asked defendant for consent to search the automobile for narcotics. The police officer told defendant he had received information that the passenger was on probation for drug offenses. Defendant stated to the officer that there were no drugs within the automobile & gave him authorization to search the vehicle, which he did. He testified that he detected a faint odor of raw cannabis that appeared to be residual, however did not locate any illegal narcotics. The 2nd officer searched the trunk of the car, where he also smelled a slight smell of raw cannabis. As soon as he opened the trunk of the vehicle, the scent became strong. Inside the trunk he found a black suitcase containing two bricks of what eventually turned out to be marijuana which was wrapped in duct tape. The suitcase also contained 3 pairs of men's jeans. Lying next to the suitcase, the sheriff's deputy found other clothing items & a box of sandwich bags. At the rear of the suitcase, he located college textbooks. There were no fingerprints discovered on the suitcase or on the duct tape, and nothing which belonged to defendant was discovered in the suitcase. At some point in the encounter, the occupant admitted that he had given a false identification, confessed his real name, & stated he was defendant's boyfriend. The driver & the occupant were taken into custody for trafficking in cannabis and transported to the police station. The defendant was noticeably upset & was crying, & the occupant wasn't. Some time after arriving at the police station, the defendant gave a statement to the police. Defendant stood firm insisting that she didn't know anything regarding the marijuana discovered in the suitcase. She stated that she and the occupant had been coming back from Miami after having driven there earlier that day in order to visit the occupant's grandmother. The defendant did not know the passenger's grandmother's real name or address, although she had the grandmother's phone number on her cellular telephone. When the detective requested defendant for permission to call the phone number, defendant refused. Upon arrest, defendant had $939 in cash located on her person & the cash was loose & not bundled in the manner normally used by drug dealers. The detective acknowledged that defendant might have informed him the cash was for tuition for her next semester at community college. The occupant, who refused to speak to detectives, had six-hundred forty dollars in cash and a razor knife located on his person. The defendant testified that she was a twenty-four-year-old college student planning to enroll for summer school. She explained the passenger was her boyfriend at the time of her arrest. Defendant testified that she went to Miami with the occupant to visit his grandmother. The defendant testified that she had never seen the black suitcase before her arrest. The suitcase wasn't in her automobile when they left for Miami, and she didn't access the trunk of the car before they left to go back home. When she & the passenger arrived in Miami they visited with her boyfriend's grandmother. The passenger had the keys in her possession at all times while they were both in Miami. The defendant & the occupant left Miami for home late in the evening. The defendant testified she didn't notice any smell in the car. She stated that she did not smoke cannabis & did not know what marijuana smells like. The defendant admitted that she was exceeding the speed limit when the deputy stopped her & that she had agreed to the search of the vehicle. Defendant explained that she knew the grandmother only as "Mama" and did not know her actual address. The occupant drove to his grandmother's residence and the defendant had not previously been there. Although the defendant had a phone number for the grandmother, she didn't want to call at 4:00 a.m. to say that she had been arrested. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on each count. The trial court sentenced defendant to forty-two months & three days in state prison with a three-year minimum mandatory on count one. On count two, the trial court imposed a simultaneous sentence of forty- two months and three days. The circuit court sentenced the defendant to time served on count three. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal because the state of florida did not show her constructive possession of cannabis. Defendant alleged that the state of florida failed to provide evidence that defendant had knowledge regarding the presence of cannabis or that she had dominion and control over the cannabis. Defendant also argued that the circuit court erred in permitting the officer & the detectives to give evidence concerning patterns of behavior related to drug trafficking. The defendant asserted that such evidence regarding generalized patterns of criminal behavior presented as proof of guilt is improper. Her final argument was that defendant should have been granted a new trial due to newly-discovered evidence. The district court stated that its disposition of the case on the constructive possession subject rendered the other 2 matters moot. The district court stated that, to be able to establish the felony charges, the state of florida was required to prove that the defendant knowingly possessed the cannabis. Because defendant wasn't in actual possession of marijuana, the state of florida was required to establish her constructive possession of the suitcase. The state had to prove that defendant knew of the presence of the suitcase & was able to exercise dominion & control over it. If the area where the drugs were found was in the defendant's exclusive possession, knowledge & control could have been inferred. However, defendant & the passenger were traveling in the defendant's car, & the passenger had access to the trunk. The state of florida had to establish defendant's knowledge of the cannabis and dominion & control over it by independent proof. Following an analysis of comparable matters, the appellate court concluded that the state of florida did not show independent proof of defendant's knowledge or dominion & control over cannabis located within the automobile. The appellate court ruled that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal. For further information regarding criminal lawyer miami, DUI Attorney you can contact us at: The Law Offices of Rosenberg and Dye 201 S Biscayne Blvd Miami, FL 33131 (305)459-3286
Related Articles -
criminal lawyer, dui attorney, criminal lawyer miami,
| 
