EDMUND R. FISHER, A/K/A "BUSTER", APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Edmund Fisher was convicted as an aider and abettor to a burglary committed by his roommate Ralph Barrow and Donald Pridemore. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, finding the evidence insufficient to prove Fisher's knowing participation in the crime.
The evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The court held that to convict someone as an aider and abettor, the state must prove the accused's intent to participate in the crime, and when relying on circumstantial evidence, the proof must be not only consistent with guilt but inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis. The evidence failed to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
[1] Evidence of intent to participate in a crime is required to convict an accused as an aider and abettor.
[2] Circumstantial evidence of guilt must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Before an accused may be convicted as an aider and abettor his intent to participate in the crime must be proved.”
Establishes the legal requirement that aiding and abetting liability requires proof of intent to participate in the crime
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFisher, a roommate of Ralph Barrow, drove Barrow and Donald Pridemore to Curry Ford Road and dropped them off about a half-mile from a house that was …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intent To Participate In Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
Appellant, Fisher, seeks reversal of his conviction as an aider and abettor in the burglary of a dwelling. The sole point on appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. We find that it was not.
The evidence showed that appellant Fisher and Ralph Barrow were roommates. Barrow asked Fisher to drive him to Curry Ford Road. On the way they stopped and picked up Donald Pridemore. Fisher dropped Barrow and Pridemore off on Curry Ford Road about Vi mile from a house which Barrow and Pridemore subsequently burglarized. Upon leaving the car Barrow told Fisher to meet him and Pridemore about an hour later at Econlochlatchee Trail. At the appointed time and place Fisher picked up Barrow and Pridemore. They had no contraband with them at the time. Barrow and Pridemore had stolen a number of guns from the dwelling in question and had wrapped them in a blanket and left them in some woods nearby. Later on that day Barrow and Pridemore borrowed Barrow’s cousin’s car and picked up the guns which they were attempting to sell when they were arrested.
The only evidence indicating that Fisher had any knowledge there was going to be a burglary is Pridemore’s testimony. He was asked whether Fisher knew of their plan to burglarize the dwelling when Fisher picked up Barrow and Pridemore. Pridemore testified: “Yes, I reckon he did.” He was then asked, “What makes you say that?”
A: “Well, I guess he did know, you know, if he was going to give us a ride down there.”
Pridemore also testified as follows:
Q: “Was anything said in the car at that time? Try to think back to that time, and remember as best you can.
A: “I said ‘we got the guns, I reckon’.”
There is no other evidence that Fisher knew of the plan to steal the guns or that after the burglary he knew anything had been stolen except Pridemore’s statement that “we got the guns, I reckon.” Nor was Fisher’s car used later on to pick up the contraband or in the attempt to dispose thereof.
Before an accused may be convicted as an aider and abettor his intent to participate in the crime must be proved. Douglas v. State, 214 So. 2d 653 (Fla.3d DCA 1968). Inasmuch as the evidence of guilt rests solely upon circumstantial evidence, the proof must be not only consistent with guilt but inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis. Lockett v. State, 262 So. 2d 253 (Fla.4th DCA 1972). The evidence adduced at trial fails to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence and is therefore inadequate to convict appellant as an aider and abetter. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
CROSS and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
COX v. State, 394 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…convicted as a principal in the first degree for aiding and abetting under Section 777.011, Florida Statutes (1979). Before an accused may be convicted as an aider and abettor, his intent to participate in the crime must be proven. Fisher v. State, 365 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Shockley v. State, 338 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976). The record does not contain any evidence of the appellant’s intent to participate in the crime. The judgment is reversed. MILLS, C. J., and ROBERT P. SMITH, J., concur. .…
-
In the Interest of C. D. S. v. State, 397 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…convicted as a principal in the first degree as an aider and abettor, his intent to participate in the crime must be established. Pack v. State, 381 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); J. H. v. State, 370 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Fisher v. State, 365 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). A defendant does not have to intend to participate in the crime committed. Beasley v. State, 360 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Rather, he must only have some criminal intent. Davis v. State, 275 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…
-
Horton v. State, 442 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…stant case rests solely upon circumstantial evidence, the proof must be not only consistent with guilt but inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis. Cox v. State, supra; Tillman v. State, 353 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Fisher v. State, 365 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Lockett v. State, 262 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Pack v. State, 381 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980). The circumstantial evidence upon which the State necessarily relies fails to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence a…
Authorities Cited
- Johnnell Lockett v. State, 262 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Ira Douglas v. State, 214 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)