Thames v. State

I respectfully dissent. The majority acknowledges that the knowing nature of Mr. Thames’ actual or constructive possession of the car at issue is an element of the offense as defined by the legislature and that the knowing nature of the alleged possession was essential to what the jury was required to determine in order to find Mr. Thames guilty of the crime defined in section 893.1351(2). But the majority equates this element with knowledge that the car was present and concludes that “Mr. Thames’ knowledge of his -possession ... of this car was a point that was never in question during his…