With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the contraband, the illegal nature of the contraband, as well as his ability to exercise dominion and control over it when the possession of the contraband is joint, as between the defendant and his associate. But the facts of this case are distinguishable from those in Mitchell. In Mitchell, the defendant was not present in the house when the contraband was discovered, and the contraband was not in plain view. The Mitchell court explains that, “the specially requested instruction, unlike the standard instructions, instructs the jury that the elements of knowledge and ability to control may not be inferred from the mere fact of joint possession of the premises where contraband is found.” Mitchell, 958 So.2d at 500; see also Taylor v. State, 13 So.3d 77, 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (<HOLDING>). The Mitchell court acknowledged, however,

A: holding the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant possessed contraband found in the kitchen of a residence where the defendant was found in the nearby bathroom attempting to dispose of contraband down the toilet
B: holding that when drugs are hidden knowledge of their presence generally cannot be inferred solely from defendants control over the vehicle
C: holding that if the site where the contraband is found is in joint rather than exclusive possession a defendants knowledge of the contrabands presence and his ability to control it cannot be inferred merely from the defendants proximity to the contraband
D: holding that circumstance that contraband was found in a box bearing defendants name was sufficient to support an inference of knowledge and dominion and control
C.