Brown v. State
428 So. 2d 250 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a case of joint occupancy, the discovery of contraband in plain view in the presence of the occupant is sufficient independent proof to support a conviction for constructive possession, satisfying the elements of knowledge and dominion/control.
Facts:
- James Frederick Brown owned and resided in a house.
- Law enforcement officers conducted a search of Brown's house pursuant to a warrant while Brown was present.
- During the search, officers discovered several pounds of marijuana and lesser quantities of hashish and PCP.
- The contraband was not concealed but was scattered in plain view throughout the common areas of the house, including the living room, kitchen, family room, and garage.
Procedural Posture:
- James Frederick Brown was convicted by a jury in a Florida trial court for constructive possession of marijuana.
- Brown, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court).
- The District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient to create a jury question.
- The District Court of Appeal then certified two questions of great public importance to the Supreme Court of Florida for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does joint occupancy of a premises where illegal drugs are discovered in plain view, in the presence of the occupant, constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction for constructive possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McDonald
Yes. Joint occupancy of a premises where illegal drugs are discovered in plain view, in the presence of the occupant, constitutes sufficient evidence to support a conviction for constructive possession. To prove constructive possession, the state must show the accused knew of the contraband's presence and had the ability to maintain dominion and control over it. In cases of joint possession, these elements cannot be inferred merely from co-occupancy and must be established by independent proof. Here, the fact that the drugs were in plain view in common areas throughout the house provides the independent proof of knowledge. The fact that Brown was the resident owner of the home, with control over its common areas, satisfies the element of dominion and control. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to create a jury question without impermissibly stacking inference upon inference.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary standard required to prove constructive possession in cases involving jointly occupied premises. It establishes that the 'plain view' doctrine can serve as the necessary 'independent proof' to establish the elements of knowledge and control, which otherwise cannot be inferred from mere joint occupancy. This holding simplifies the prosecution's burden in cases where contraband is found openly in common areas, distinguishing them from scenarios where contraband is hidden in a jointly occupied space, which would require more specific proof linking the defendant to the illicit items. The ruling provides a clear precedent for lower courts, reducing confusion in a frequently litigated area of drug law.
