Martoral v. State
946 So. 2d 1240, 2007 WL 101274 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish constructive possession of contraband in a jointly occupied vehicle, the state must present independent proof of the defendant's knowledge of the contraband and their ability to exercise dominion and control over it. Mere proximity to contraband, even when it is in plain view, is insufficient to prove the element of dominion and control.
Facts:
- In September 2003, Martin Martoral was placed on three years of probation for dealing in stolen property.
- As a condition of his probation, Martoral provided his residence address as room 104 at a Howard Johnson's hotel.
- At some point, Martoral changed rooms within the same hotel.
- On May 22, 2005, police officers responded to a report of narcotics activity at a residence.
- The officers observed Martoral sitting in the driver's seat of a pick-up truck parked in front of the residence, with another man in the passenger seat.
- An officer saw a baggie of marijuana in plain view in a compartment on the dashboard, above the radio.
- The baggie of marijuana was positioned at an equal distance from both Martoral and the passenger.
- The state presented no evidence that Martoral owned or regularly drove the pick-up truck.
Procedural Posture:
- Martin Martoral was sentenced to three years of probation by a Florida trial court after pleading no contest to dealing in stolen property.
- An affidavit was filed alleging Martoral violated his probation by, among other things, changing his residence without approval and possessing cannabis.
- Following a violation of probation (VOP) hearing, the trial court found Martoral guilty of these two violations.
- The trial court revoked Martoral's probation and sentenced him to ten years in prison.
- Martoral, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order of revocation 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:
Does a probationer's mere proximity to contraband found in plain view within a jointly occupied vehicle, without additional independent evidence of dominion and control, constitute sufficient proof of constructive possession to support a probation revocation?
Opinions:
Majority - Stevenson, C.J.
No. A probationer's mere proximity to contraband in plain view within a jointly occupied vehicle is insufficient to prove constructive possession without independent evidence of dominion and control. To revoke probation, the state must prove a willful and substantial violation by the greater weight of the evidence. For the residence change, there was no evidence Martoral's act of moving rooms within the same hotel was a willful violation, as he may not have known it constituted a change of residence requiring his officer's approval. For the drug possession, the court applied the two-part test for constructive possession: knowledge and dominion/control. While the marijuana's plain view location was sufficient to infer Martoral's knowledge, the state failed to prove dominion and control. In a jointly occupied vehicle, dominion and control cannot be inferred from mere proximity; it requires independent proof linking the contraband to the defendant. Since the marijuana was equidistant from both occupants and there was no evidence connecting Martoral to the truck or the drugs (such as ownership), the state failed to meet its burden, even under the lower preponderance of the evidence standard for probation violations.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between the knowledge and dominion/control elements required to prove constructive possession, particularly in the context of joint occupancy. It clarifies that even when contraband is in plain view, satisfying the knowledge element, the state must still produce independent evidence to establish a defendant's control over it. The ruling serves as a significant precedent in Florida for defendants in jointly occupied vehicles, preventing convictions based solely on proximity to contraband. This forces the state to build a more substantial evidentiary link, such as ownership of the vehicle, incriminating statements, or other forensic evidence, to prove possession.
