to the control element. Edison properly frames his argument in terms of whether the motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted, thus allowing the issue of control to go to the jury. See Isaac v. State, 730 So.2d 757, 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“Whether a defendant had dominion and control over contraband is generally a fact issue for the jury, but a judgment of acquittal is proper when there is no evidence from which dominion and control can be inferred.”). One general principle applicable to possession cases is that “[m]ere proximity to contraband is not enough to establish dominion and control.” Id. Instead, “the evidence must establish the defendant’s conscious and substantial possession, as distinguished from mere involuntary or superficial possession, of the contra 83) (<HOLDING>). The State argues, however, that additional
holding that circumstantial evidence of guilt emanating from the defendants proximity to illicit drugs in plain view was equally susceptible to the reasonable hypotheses that the defendant was a mere visitor and that the drugs were in the possession and control of the owner or other occupant of the premises holding evidence insufficient to establish defendant had physical or constructive possession of heroin when no drugs were found on his person and the only drugs discovered on the premises which he shared with the codefendant were secreted out of plain view holding when drugs are found on premises exclusive control provides significant proof of constructive possession holding that proof of the discovery of illegal drugs in plain view in the presence or two or more joint occupants of the premises is sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession holding that proof that the person has dominion over the premises where the firearm is located is sufficient to establish constructive possession citation omitted