BILLY JAMES DAVIS, 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.
Billy James Davis was convicted of uttering a forged instrument after a bank teller became suspicious of a transaction involving his stolen driver's license and a forged check. The court reversed the conviction because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Davis was the actual perpetrator of the crime.
The court reversed Davis's conviction because the state failed to prove the essential element of identity beyond a reasonable doubt. The teller could only identify Davis as the person pictured on the driver's license, but presented no evidence that Davis was the man in the back seat who actually handed the documents to the driver, and his testimony that his license was stolen was uncontradicted.
[1] The state must prove the identity of the accused as the perpetrator of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
[2] Possession of a driver's license by the accused is insufficient to convict the accused of uttering a forged instrument when the accused testifies the license was stolen a…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the state must prove the identity of the accused as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt”
Establishes the fundamental legal standard requiring the state to prove identity as a separate element of 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 intelligenceOn March 24, 1982, a bank teller observed three black men in a blue Chevrolet Chevette attempt to cash a forged check drawn on Lee County Bank. The dr…
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 Uttering A Forged Instrument cases and more on FLexlaw
[*974] CAMPBELL, Judge.
On March 24, 1982, Ms. Tami Armstrong was working as a drive-in teller for the First National Bank of Ft. Myers when a blue Chevrolet Chevette drove up to her window. She noticed that there were three black men inside the car; she also saw the man in the back seat hand a check and a driver’s license to the driver. The driver then handed her these two items. The check was drawn on the Lee County Bank and named Billy James Davis as the payee and Mr. Pat Dickmon as signatory. The driver’s license was issued to appellant. Armstrong delayed conducting the transaction because she was suspicious of the three men, and after a few minutes, the men in the car drove off. They left the driver’s license and the check with Ms. Armstrong. She testified that the endorsement on the check and the signature on the driver’s license were not a total match.
Appellant, Billy James Davis, was arrested and later charged with uttering a forged instrument in violation of section 831.02, Florida Statutes (1981). At trial, the state called Ms. Armstrong who testified that she saw only the profile of the man in the back seat and that she could not tell whether he was the same man whose picture appeared on the driver’s license. She identified appellant in court as the man whose face appeared on the driver’s license. However, the state presented no further testimony, either identifying appellant as the perpetrator of the crime or otherwise placing him at the scene of the crime. Appellant testified that his driver’s license had been stolen. The jury found appellant guilty as charged, but we find that we now must reverse because the evidence presented by the state was insufficient as a matter of law.
It is well established in Florida that the state must prove the identity of the accused as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt. Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Ponsell v. State, 393 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). See Williams v. State, 68 Fla. 239, 67 So. 43 (1914). Here, the state did not produce one scintilla of evidence that appellant was the man in the back seat who handed the license and check to the driver, who, in turn, handed these items to Ms. Armstrong. Although the driver’s license was appellant’s, that circumstance was not enough to convict him once he took the stand and testified that his driver’s license had been stolen.
Because the state failed to prove this essential element of its case beyond a reasonable doubt, we REVERSE appellant’s conviction and order his discharge.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I.F.T. v. State, 629 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…the crime charged, the evidence lacks the conclusive nature to support a conviction. Collins v. State, 438 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The state must prove the identity of the accused as the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt. Davis v. State, 438 So. 2d 973 (Fla.2d DCA 1983). The state failed to do this in this case. We therefore reverse the appellant’s convictions. Reversed. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.…
-
Currelly v. State, 644 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…r bullet from Ford’s body which, in his opinion, was the cause of death. It is a basic principle of Florida law that the state must prove the identity of a defendant as the perpetrator of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Davis v. State, 438 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA1983). If the state fails to meet this burden then “the case should not be submitted to the jury and a judgment of acquittal should be granted.” Ponsell v. State, 393 So. 2d 635, 637 (Fla. 4th DCA1981). In reviewing the sufficiency of th…
-
Blue v. State (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2015)…belonging to Appellant found at the scene. They were not inadmissible hearsay and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting them. While a conviction could not be sustained based on this circumstantial evidence alone, Davis v. State, 438 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), the jury also had the positive identification made by the officer to support its finding of guilt. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the order of the trial court is AFFIRMED. DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Orange County, Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Ivester v. State, 398 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Ponsell v. State, 393 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Williams v. State, 68 Fla. 239 (Fla. 1914)