PETER LOWERY, 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.
The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for robbery with a firearm, and the jury could reasonably conclude guilt.
Appellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm based on entirely circumstantial evidence. Appellant argued the State failed to exclude every reason…
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 Sufficiency Of Circumstantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Lowery appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery with a firearm. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the State failed to establish that appellant perpetrated the robbery. We disagree and affirm.
The State’s evidence against appellant was entirely circumstantial. It is true, as argued by appellant, that circumstantial evidence is insufficient to support conviction if it fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Peek v. State, 395 So. 2d 492 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 964, 101 S.Ct. 2036, 68 L.Ed.2d 342 (1981). It is also true, however, that the test to be applied in reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is not whether in the opinion of the trial judge or appellate court the evidence fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, but whether the jury must reasonably so conclude. Pressley v. State, 395 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 407 So. 2d 1105 (Fla.1981). Stated otherwise, the test is whether the jury, as trier of fact, might reasonably conclude that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt. Knight v. State, 392 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 399 So. 2d 1143 (Fla.1981).
In the instant case, we think the circumstantial evidence was sufficient. Appellant, while arguing that the evidence does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, has not suggested to this court any such hypothesis. Nor can we, after reviewing the record, imagine any hypothesis of innocence so plausible that the jury could not have rejected it as unreasonable. Brown v. State, 369 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), relied upon by appellant, is factually distinguishable.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dunn v. State, 454 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…o. 2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Teague v. State, 390 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Bouler v. State, 389 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Knight v. State, 392 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 399 So. 2d 1143 (Fla.1981); Lowery v. State, 450 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The difference between the view represented by the line of cases cited by defendant (note 2, supra) and the view represented by the line of cases cited in the text above, while subtle, is not merely a seman-tical one, as assert…1 / 2
-
Kresbach v. State, 462 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…object’s location. The test for reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is “whether the jury, as trier of fact, might reasonably conclude that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt.” Lowery v. State, 450 So. 2d 587, 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Appellant argues that the evidence failed to exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence; that he touched the manila envelope at a business, friend’s house or in a pile of mail, as examples, before it contained cocaine, or…
-
Warren v. State, 475 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ntessa, or child abuse of William. She points out that where, as here, the evidence of guilt is entirely circumstantial, the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1984); Lowery v. State, 450 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Here, appellant maintains, the only evidence linking her to the crimes was her proximity to the scene of the crimes, which is legally insufficient to support a conviction, Gains [*1030] v. State, 417 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 198…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peek v. State, 395 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1980)
- Schiller v. United States, 451 U.S. 964 (U.S. 1981)
- Pickens v. Arkansas, 451 U.S. 964 (U.S. 1981)
- Irven George Pressley v. State, 395 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Bridges v. State, 392 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Knight v. State, 392 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Hamilton v. State, 369 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)