Frank v. State
199 So. 2d 117 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, the state must prove the accused had knowledge of the drug's presence. Knowledge may be inferred if the accused had exclusive possession of the premises, but must be established by independent proof if possession was joint.
Facts:
- Milton F. Frank shared an apartment with another man.
- Frank was the only person present in the apartment when police arrived to search the premises.
- During the search, police found vials of marijuana hidden between the mattresses of a bed, in a vase, and in a night table drawer.
- Police also discovered two smoking pipes which, upon analysis, showed they had been used for smoking marijuana.
- Frank's roommate had equal custody and control of the apartment and equal access to the locations where the contraband was found.
- Frank denied any knowledge of the marijuana's presence and denied that the pipes belonged to him or that he had ever used them.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Milton F. Frank in a trial court with two counts of unlawful possession of narcotic drugs.
- At the conclusion of the trial, Frank requested a jury instruction on the element of scienter (knowledge), which the trial court denied.
- A jury found Frank guilty on both counts.
- The trial court set aside the verdict on the first count (morphine) due to insufficient evidence but entered a judgment of conviction and sentence on the second count (marijuana).
- Frank, as appellant, appealed the conviction on the marijuana count to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, with the State of Florida as appellee.
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 the crime of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug require the state to prove that the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the drug, thus entitling the defendant to a jury instruction on the element of scienter?
Opinions:
Majority - Wigginton, Acting Chief Judge
Yes, the crime of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug requires proof of scienter, and a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on this element. The court reasoned that knowledge is an essential and indispensable element of the offense. Citing precedent, the court established a framework for proving knowledge based on the nature of the defendant's possession of the premises. If the premises are in the defendant's exclusive possession, knowledge of the contraband's presence may be inferred, though this inference is rebuttable. However, if the premises are in joint possession, as in this case, knowledge will not be inferred and must be established by independent proof. Such proof can include actual knowledge or incriminating statements and circumstances from which a jury could lawfully infer knowledge. The trial court erred by refusing to give the requested instruction on scienter, and its own instruction defining 'possession' was insufficient to cover this critical element of the crime.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical precedent in Florida law regarding the mens rea (guilty mind) required for constructive possession of contraband. It creates a clear distinction between exclusive and joint possession scenarios, significantly raising the evidentiary bar for the prosecution in joint occupancy cases. By refusing to allow an inference of knowledge based solely on joint control of a property, the decision protects individuals from being convicted based on mere proximity to contraband they may not know about. This framework forces the state to provide specific, independent evidence linking a defendant to the contraband, thereby safeguarding innocent cohabitants from the illegal acts of others.
