FERNANDO BERRIEL AND JUAN GARZZON, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE 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 affirmed convictions for grand theft where defendants' uncorroborated explanation for possessing stolen tool boxes was not so inherently reasonable that no jury could reject it.
A defendant's uncorroborated explanation for possessing stolen property does not constitute a reasonable hypothesis of innocence as a matter of law when the explanation is arguably farfetched and the jury is free to disregard it.
[1] An uncorroborated and arguably farfetched explanation for possessing stolen property does not constitute a reasonable hypothesis of innocence as a matter of law when a ju…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants Berriel and Garzzon were apprehended in the cellar of an apartment building in possession of stolen tool boxes and offered an explanation f…
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 Reasonable Hypothesis Of Innocence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendants Fernando Berriel and Juan Garzzon appeal from adverse judgments of conviction and sentences for the grand theft of certain tool boxes entered below upon a jury verdict. The defendants’ sole point on appeal is that the defendants’ explanation as to their presence in the cellar of an apartment building where they were apprehended in possession of the stolen tool boxes herein presented a reasonable hypothesis of innocence as a matter of law, and that the trial court committed reversible error in denying their motion for judgment of acquittal below.
We disagree. Without going into the details of the explanation adduced, suffice it to say that it was not so inherently reasonable that no reasonable jury could have rejected it. The explanation, on its face, was at least arguably farfetched and was uncorroborated by any other evidence; the jury was therefore free to disregard it as, in fact, they did.
Moreover, the fact that the state presented no witness or physical exhibit to directly refute the alleged truth of the asserted explanation does not, under the circumstances of this case, change this result. See, e.g., Lincoln v. State, 459 So. 2d 1030, 1031-32 (Fla.1984); Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210, 212 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 920, 105 S.Ct. 303, 83 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984); Rose v. State, 425 So. 2d 521, 523 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 909, 103 S.Ct. 1883, 76 L.Ed.2d 812 (1983); State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 826 (Fla.1976); J.J. v. State, 463 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Newberry v. State, 442 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradford Edwards v. State, 543 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…fficient to sustain appellant’s conviction. In addition, on the evidence presented, we believe a reasonable jury could have found that appellant’s alleged theory of the case did not present a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See Berriel v. State, 524 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). We also find no reversible error in the other issues raised on appeal, ANSTEAD, LETTS and GARRETT, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1976)
- Rose v. State, 425 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1982)
- Ring v. Oklahoma, 461 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1983)
- Edwards v. United States, 461 U.S. 909 (U.S. 1983)
- Garrison v. Hudson, 469 U.S. 920 (U.S. 1984)
- Perry v. Lockhart, 469 U.S. 920 (U.S. 1984)
- Newberry v. State, 442 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Lincoln v. State, 459 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 1984)
- J.J. v. State, 463 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)