Hively v. State
336 So. 2d 127 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an accused is in joint, rather than exclusive, possession of the premises where a controlled substance is found, the state cannot infer the accused's knowledge and ability to control the substance; it must establish these elements through independent proof.
Facts:
- Deputy Sheriffs were called to the Stone Apple Bar and Grill parking lot to disperse a loitering group.
- The deputies observed Randal L. Hively and Leslie Bardon inside an automobile, smoking a substance.
- The automobile did not belong to Hively; he had borrowed it to take Bardon home, and other individuals had been in the car shortly before.
- Deputies approached the car and detected the odor of marijuana.
- Upon looking into the car, deputies found a pipe on the console, a bag of marijuana on the floor in front of the driver's seat where Hively was sitting, two marijuana cigarette butts ('roaches'), and a 'roach clip' in the ashtray.
- Hively stated he did not see the bag of marijuana, the roaches, or the roach clip.
Procedural Posture:
- Randal L. Hively was charged by information in a Florida trial court with unlawful possession of cannabis in excess of five grams.
- A trial was held before a jury.
- At the close of the state's case and again at the close of all evidence, Hively moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing the state failed to prove his knowledge of the cannabis.
- The trial court denied both motions.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Hively guilty as charged.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Hively to two years in prison.
- Hively (Appellant) appealed the judgment and sentence to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, with the State of Florida as the 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:
Is the defendant's mere proximity to cannabis in a jointly occupied, borrowed vehicle, coupled with the odor of marijuana, sufficient to establish the knowledge element required for constructive possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Cross
No. The defendant's mere proximity to cannabis in a jointly occupied, borrowed vehicle is insufficient to establish constructive possession. Constructive possession requires proof that the accused knew of the substance's presence and had the ability to maintain control over it. When possession of the premises is joint, as it was here in a borrowed and co-occupied vehicle, knowledge and control cannot be inferred from proximity alone. The state must present independent proof, such as incriminating statements or other circumstances, that establishes the defendant's knowledge. The state’s evidence—the bag's proximity, the pipe, the roaches, and the odor—is purely circumstantial and fails to exclude the reasonable possibility that another person, such as the car's owner or a previous occupant, placed the marijuana in the vehicle without Hively's knowledge. Therefore, the evidence was insufficient to present a jury question on the defendant's knowledge.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high burden of proof for the prosecution in constructive possession cases involving joint occupancy of a premises, particularly vehicles. It establishes a clear precedent in Florida that mere presence or proximity to contraband in a shared space is not, by itself, sufficient to prove the element of knowledge. The ruling forces the state to provide more specific, incriminating evidence linking the accused directly to the contraband, thereby protecting individuals from conviction based solely on their association with a place where drugs are found. This principle significantly impacts how drug possession cases are prosecuted when multiple people have access to the location.
