BARLATIER v. State
2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 19618, 2009 WL 4824798, 26 So. 3d 29 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Constructive possession of an item can be established through circumstantial evidence showing the defendant knew of the item's presence and had the ability to maintain control over it.
Facts:
- Michael Barlatier's girlfriend lent him her car two or three days before the incident.
- The girlfriend testified that she never brought any firearms into the vehicle.
- On November 15, 2003, police, who had an arrest warrant for Barlatier, located and conducted surveillance on the vehicle he was driving.
- Police observed Barlatier enter the driver's side of the car, with a passenger entering the other side.
- After Barlatier drove off, police units blocked the vehicle to prevent escape.
- When an officer ordered Barlatier out of the car, the officer saw a gun on the floor protruding from under the driver's seat.
- Upon the gun's discovery, Barlatier made a swiping motion with his hand, as if to knock the gun further under the seat to conceal it.
- Police testimony established that the passenger did not have an opportunity to place the gun on the driver's side.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Michael Barlatier in a trial court with multiple counts, including unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.
- The State and defense agreed to sever the other counts and proceed to trial solely on the firearm possession charge.
- At the close of the State's evidence, Barlatier's counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the evidence of constructive possession was legally insufficient.
- The trial court denied the motion.
- A jury found Barlatier guilty of the charge.
- The trial court sentenced Barlatier to thirty years in prison.
- Barlatier, as the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is circumstantial evidence, including a firearm's presence in plain view under a driver's seat and the driver's swiping motion towards it upon being discovered by police, sufficient to prove constructive possession in a prosecution for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon?
Opinions:
Majority - Suarez, J.
Yes. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to establish constructive possession where the facts allow a jury to reasonably infer that the defendant knew of the firearm's presence and had the ability to control it. Constructive possession exists when a person knows of a firearm's presence and has the ability to maintain control over it, even without physical possession. Here, the gun was found in plain view under the driver's seat where Barlatier was sitting. This location supports an inference of knowledge. Furthermore, Barlatier’s swiping motion to hide the gun upon its discovery by police is strong circumstantial evidence of both knowledge of its presence and his intent to exercise control over it. The evidence excluded the possibility that the passenger could have placed the gun there, leaving Barlatier as the only person with control. Therefore, the trial court correctly denied the motion for acquittal and submitted the issue of constructive possession to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that constructive possession can be proven entirely through circumstantial evidence, without any direct evidence of ownership or physical contact. It highlights the significance of a defendant's conduct upon police intervention, establishing that furtive movements to conceal contraband can serve as powerful evidence of both knowledge and control. This precedent is particularly useful for prosecutors in cases involving items found in shared spaces like vehicles, as it provides a clear framework for linking an item to a specific occupant based on location and behavior.
