Title: State v. Eckroth
Citation: 238 So. 2d 75
Docket Number: 39245
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: July 8, 1970

238 So. 2d 75 (1970)
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Arthur William ECKROTH, Respondent.
No. 39245.

Supreme Court of Florida.
July 8, 1970.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Barry M. Salzman, Winter Haven, of Roney, Ulmer, Woodworth &amp; Jacobs, St. Petersburg, for respondent.
BOYD, Justice.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, reported at 227 So. 2d 313. Jurisdiction is based on conflict between the decision sought to be reviewed and the decision of this Court in Reynolds v. State.[1]
Respondent, Eckroth, hereinafter referred to as "defendant" was charged with unlawfully possessing and having in his control, a certain narcotic drug, to-wit: cannabis sativa, commonly known as marijuana. He was tried by a jury and found guilty of the charge. On appeal, the District Court reversed the conviction finding the evidence insufficient to show that defendant had possession or control of marijuana. The Court reviewed decisions from other states involving possession of illegal liquor and stated:[2]
The facts in the instant case are that the defendant Eckroth accompanied by codefendants Homer and Marshall, entered the home of codefendant Belle Matthews between 1:30 A.M. and 2:00 A.M. on March 10, 1968; that codefendant Marshall, at the time the three men entered the house, had six clear plastic bags of marijuana with him, which he placed on a footlocker in the house; that the occupants in the house rolled and smoked cigarettes made from the marijuana Marshall brought with him; that defendant Eckroth and codefendants Marshall, Homer, Matthews and several others, sat in a circle and smoked a pipe belonging to Marshall and filled with marijuana. The pipe was passed around to those in the circle and defendant Eckroth smoked the pipe when it was passed to him.
In Reynolds v. State,[4] this Court stated:
The possession and control of defendant Eckroth in the instant case meets the Reynolds test. In fact, the uncontradicted evidence establishes actual, physical possession and control of the drug.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "possession" as "the act or condition of having in or taking into one's control or holding at one's disposal" and "smoke' as "to inhale and exhale the fumes of tobacco or something resembling tobacco from a pipe, cigar, or cigarette." Inhaling and exhaling requires both possession and control of the substance smoked, in this case, the narcotic, marijuana. In addition, when defendant Eckroth received the pipe containing marijuana and passed it on to the smoker, he was possessing and controlling both the pipe and the narcotic drug therein.
The District Court in its opinion relies on decisions from other states construing the "possession" language of the illegal liquor laws of the prohibition era. Of greater persuasive authority are the decisions of our own courts and the courts of other states construing the possession and control requirements of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act.
The Uniform Narcotic Drug Act has been adopted in Florida and forty-five (45) other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.[5] Florida Statutes § 398.03, F.S.A., under which defendant stands convicted is identical to Section 2 of the Uniform Act[6] and provides:
The terms "possess, have under his control" have been construed in numerous cases in states having the Uniform Act. In an earlier opinion the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Spataro v. State,[7]*77 held that possession need not be exclusive but may be joint with one or more persons. In Spataro, the presence of marijuana cigarettes in a dresser in a room of a house shared by the codefendants was held sufficient to establish possession under the Act. The District Court stated:[8]
It is clear that possession and control under the Act need not be exclusive nor of great durmation,[9] and that the quantity possessed is immaterial.[10] Cases from other states involving "pot parties" and common access to a narcotic hold possession sufficient even when based on circumstantial evidence.[11] The facts before us establish a stronger case based on actual possession. In State v. Jefferson,[12] the State's evidence was that a needle and syringe with its contents were seen in defendant's right hand. The Missouri Court held this sufficient under the Uniform Act stating:[13]
In Peachie v. State,[14] the Maryland Court stated:
The interpretation of Florida Statutes § 398.03, F.S.A., urged by respondent herein and adopted by the District Court below, requires exclusive and extended possession or control of the narcotic. This is contrary to the great weight of authority from other jurisdictions having the Uniform Act. Further, such an interpretation would permit smoking marijuana from a pipe in conjunction with a group and would also permit a person to take heroin from a needle, if the same needle and drug were being used by others in a group. The result would be to undermine the purpose of the Act which is to prohibit or limit the use of drugs which are destructive to the user and detrimental to the public generally.
Accordingly, the decision of the District Court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to reinstate the verdict and judgment of conviction.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, DREW and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
ERVIN, C.J., dissents with opinion.
ERVIN, Chief Justice (dissenting):
I do not believe that the defendant Eckroth is guilty of the crime of possessing and having in his control marijuana, since the evidence against him was only that he sat in a circle with others and smoked from a pipe belonging to one Marshall, who filled it with marijuana, lit it and passed it on to Eckroth, who took a puff. I think the District Court's reasoning set forth in the majority opinion and the cases it cites in support are sufficient to demonstrate there was no "possession" of marijuana by Eckroth in the substantial sense recognized and established in the law denouncing unlawful possession of prohibited things.
[1]  92 Fla. 1038, 111 So. 285 (1927).
[2]  227 So. 2d 313, 316 (Fla.App.2d 1969).
[3]  State v. Williams, 117 Or. 238, 243 P. 563 (1926).
[4]  Reynolds v. State, 92 Fla. 1038, 1041, 111 So. 285, 286 (1927).
[5]  91 A.L.R.2d 810, 811 (1963).
[6]  9B Uniform Laws Anno. 423 (1966).
[7]  179 So. 2d 873 (Fla.App.2d 1965).
[8]  Id. at 876.
[9]  State v. Brown, 235 Md. 401, 201 A.2d 852 (1964) (the "moment" it took to hand envelope to another held sufficient); Sutton v. State, 170 Tex.Cr.R. 617, 343 S.W.2d 452 (1960) (25 seconds held sufficient).
[10]  Schenher v. State, 38 Ala.App. 573, 90 So. 2d 234; cert. denied 265 Ala. 700, 90 So. 2d 238 (1956); Sutton v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 216, 247 S.W.2d 894 (1952).
[11]  Patterson v. State, 403 P.2d 515 (Okla. Crim. App. 1965); Peachie v. State, 203 Md. 239, 100 A.2d 1 (Md. App.Ct. 1953).
[12]  391 S.W.2d 885 (Mo. 1965).
[13]  Id. at 889.
[14]  203 Md. 239, 100 A.2d 1, 2 (Md. App. Ct. 1953).