## Facts

- A deputy observed a white Nissan Maxima enter a warehouse/business complex late at night and later found it parked with the window down, keys in the ignition, stereo playing, and hood warm.
- The deputy saw a garage door closing and, as it lowered, observed only a “pair of feet” entering a warehouse; the person was not identified.
- About 20 seconds later, the deputy saw Joel Sierra standing 3–4 feet from the entrance of a detail shop; when approached, he began walking away but complied when called back and was detained.
- An officer raised the garage door and deployed a K-9; the deputy entered through the front and saw a black nylon duffel bag in the rear area.
- Sierra had about $1,195 in cash; no drugs were found on his person.
- Sierra’s fingerprints were found in the Maxima along with unidentified prints; no drugs were found in the vehicle, and the deputy did not know how many people were in the car earlier.
- After a search warrant issued for the detail shop, officers found two bags of cocaine in the duffel bag, a measuring cup, and several empty plastic bags.
- Sierra’s fingerprints were on the measuring cup and empty plastic bags, but not on the bags containing cocaine.
- No evidence showed Sierra owned, leased, or otherwise had a possessory interest in, or exclusive control of, the detail shop or warehouse.

## Issues

1. Whether circumstantial evidence of proximity, cash, and fingerprints on non-contraband items inside a non-exclusive premises was sufficient to prove constructive possession of cocaine and related paraphernalia.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying Sierra’s motion for judgment of acquittal on trafficking by possession and possession of drug paraphernalia.

## Decision

- The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed Sierra’s convictions for trafficking in 200 grams or more of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia.
- The court held the evidence was legally insufficient to establish constructive possession where Sierra lacked exclusive control of the premises and the State did not provide independent proof of dominion, control, and knowledge.
- The case was remanded with directions to discharge Sierra on both charges.

## Legal Principles

- To prove constructive possession, the State must establish: (1) dominion and control over the contraband, (2) knowledge of its presence, and (3) knowledge of its illicit nature.
- When contraband is found in a location not in the defendant’s exclusive possession, the State must present independent evidence linking the defendant to knowledge and control; proximity and association alone are insufficient.
- In a wholly circumstantial case, evidence must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence; if reasonable alternative inferences remain, a judgment of acquittal is required.
- Fingerprints on nearby, non-contraband items and suspicious conduct may support suspicion but do not, without additional proof, establish dominion and control over contraband.

## Conclusion

Because Sierra did not have exclusive possession of the premises and the State’s circumstantial proof—presence near the entrance, cash, and fingerprints on a measuring cup and empty bags—did not exclude reasonable innocent explanations or show dominion and control over the cocaine, the appellate court ruled the trial court should have granted a judgment of acquittal and ordered Sierra discharged.


Sierra v. State, 746 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)