3 ms·

Thanks for all the info! The case you described also sounded familiar to me so I set out trying to find it. No luck though; the closest I could come was Califor

• joering2 9y ago
  Amazing case. I dont think however it will stand the test of time today. A driver that supposedly doesnt know how marihuana smells (how do you prove he does or does not) drives across the state moving tons of contraband so long as he does not posses a key to the truck's locker.
  • TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    I guess in court you ‘prove’ that a person has no knowledge of the smell of marijuana by all of: a) they make a statement under oath to the effect that they have no knowledge b) they and their immediate family / propuesta they live with have no relevant convictions or charges that would contradict the above, and no known links to anyone who clearly does (no electronic communications collect as evidence) c) they are otherwise a just, upright, and moral citizen
    • sathackr 9y ago
      The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant has a right to remain silent(5th amendment) and that silence cannot be used against him/her. If there is no evidence* that the person knows what marijuana smells like, then their knowledge of what it smells like cannot be proved, so there is no issue of fact for a jury to consider, and the case should be dismissed. * - 'evidence' is a very low bar to meet. It can be something as benign as a conversation about herbal remedies. Once there is some sort of 'evidence' -- it can go to trial and is up to the jury (the trier of fact) to determine if indeed that conversation about herbal remedies proves the defendant knows what marijuana smells like. One thing I found interesting is that nearly every type of charge has a set of jury instructions that tell the jury exactly what they must decide. They are quite enlightening. FL Jury instructions for most drug offenses: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions-ch25.shtml http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instruc... Specifically possession(RTF) http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter25/p2c25s25.7.rtf http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapter...
• sathackr 9y ago
  I dug a little deeper and still did not find it. There were two similar cases, one in which the box truck had a pass-through into the cabin, and based on this, the conviction was upheld because it was deemed that the pass-through from the passenger compartment of the vehicle into the cargo compartment allowed the defendants knowledge and control. In the other case, there was no pass through and the conviction was overturned. I will dig through some more files tomorrow. They were both State of Florida cases. Another interesting(older) case was one in which a defendant was seen leaving an unoccupied house, was 'stopped and frisked' and a Tylenol(or some other legal OTC drug) bottle containing some sort of illegal drug(MDMA or something like that) was found in his actual possession(on his body). The defendant told the police that he had taken the bottle from the house and was unaware it contained illegal drugs. The conviction was overturned because while he knew of the presence of the pills in the bottle and could clearly exercise dominion and control as it was in his actual possession, there was no evidence to indicate he had knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance.