DANIEL JOSEPH HORNER, APPELLANT,
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.
Evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict the appellant of conspiracy to traffic cocaine.
The appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, and possession of a controlled substance. He appeals only the…
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 Conspiracy To Traffic In Cocaine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Horner was. convicted of trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, and possession of a controlled substance. He appeals the conspiracy conviction. We affirm.
Horner correctly contends that conspiracy is a separate and distinct crime from the offense which is the object of the conspiracy, and that evidence of participation in an offense, although sufficient to convict a person as a principal, see § 777.011, Fla.Stat. (1987), is not necessarily sufficient to convict for conspiracy. See Ramirez v. State, 371 So. 2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1201 (Fla.1980). There must be proof of an express or implied agreement between two or more persons to commit the offense, and both an agreement and an intention to commit the offense must be shown. Id.
It is also true, however, that “ ‘[DJirect proof of an agreement is not necessary to establish a conspiracy; the jury is free to infer from all the circumstances surrounding and accompanying the act that the common purpose to commit the crime existed.’” Herrera v. State, 532 So. 2d 54, 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (citation omitted). While mere presence is not enough to establish participation in a conspiracy, presence is a factor which the jury may consider. Id.
In light of the foregoing principles we conclude that the testimony of Miller and Hofsteder, as well as Horner’s own statement, were sufficient for the jury to convict Horner of conspiracy. We therefore affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalez v. State, 571 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…We disagree. “[Djirect proof of an agreement is not necessary to establish a conspiracy; the jury is free to infer from all the circumstances surrounding and accompanying the act that the common purpose to commit the crime existed.” Horner v. State, 558 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), citing Herrera v. State, 532 So. 2d 54, 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The jury is also free to consider the defendants’ presence at the place of the sale in determining their guilt. Herrera, 532 So. 2d at 58. We conclude that Zayas…
-
Pino v. State, 573 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…minal agreement is not necessary to establish a conspiracy; the jury may infer from all the surrounding circumstances that a common purpose to commit a crime existed. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. State, 571 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Horner v. State, 558 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Herrera; McCain v. State, 390 So. 2d 779, 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 399 So. 2d 1144 (Fla.1981). Where, as here, the defendants are involved in a series of meetings, arrangements, and negotiations to sell or buy…
-
Rickie E. Wilder v. State, 587 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…ly assisted in loading and unloading property on occasion. While presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish a conspiracy, presence is a factor that may be considered in determining whether a conspiracy existed. Horner v. State, 558 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Herrera v. State, 532 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). But, evidence of aiding and abetting is insufficient to prove a conspiracy. Jimenez v. State, 535 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Voto v. State, 509 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 198…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Florentino Ramirez v. State, 371 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Herrera v. State, 532 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)