drugs not prescribed by a physician. The evidence, however, was insufficient to establish that Mr. Ford possessed the marijuana. “All possession crimes may be either actual or constructive. ... Possession is actual when the contraband is (1) in the defendant’s hand or on his person, (2) in a container in the defendant’s hand or on his person, or (8) within the defendant’s ‘ “ready reach” ’ and the contraband is under his control.” Sundin v. State, 27 So.3d 675, 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quoting Harris v. State, 954 So.2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)). Despite Mr. Ford’s admission that the driver tossed the marijuana to him to hide, this momentary possession did not establish Mr. Ford’s dominion and control over the contraband. See Campbell v. State, 577 So.2d 932, 935 (Fla.1991) (<HOLDING>); Roberts v. State, 505 So.2d 547, 549 (Fla. 3d
recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell holding defendants temporary possession of kilo of cocaine in owners presence to inspect it before unconsummated purchase did not infer dominion or control holding that an instruction requiring the jury to find that the defendant had the power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the cocaine was adequate to convey the principle that mere presence or proximity is not sufficient holding defendants transitory touching of bale of marijuana when he weighed it to be purchased by third party did not establish dominion and control for possession charge recognizing that knowledge and dominion and control are separate elements and stating that it is conceivable that an accused might be well aware of the presence of the substance but have no ability to maintain control over it