CHASON
v.
STATE
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 appellate court reviewed a conviction for second-degree murder, affirming the judgment. The sole issue raised was the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence presented by the State.
Yes, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if it excludes every reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused and convinces the jury to a moral certainty.
“where circumstantial evidence is sufficiently strong and cogent to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused the verdict and judgment of conviction will not be disturbed by the appellate court.”
Establishes the standard for appellate review of convictions based on circumstantial evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence to prove the defendant's guilt for second-degree murder. The appellant argued that this ev…
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 Moral Certainty cases and more on FLexlaw
The appeal brings for review judgment of conviction of murder in the second degree. *Page 541
The only contention presented by the appellant is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and judgment.
The State relied entirely on circumstantial evidence. No good purpose can be served by setting out the evidence here. It is sufficient to say that where circumstantial evidence is sufficiently strong and cogent to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused the verdict and judgment of conviction will not be disturbed by the appellate court. McLaurin v. State, 137 Fla. 783, 188 So. 574; Bivens v. State, 69 Fla. 591, 68 So. 757. Circumstantial evidence may be relied upon for conviction of the most heinous crime. Lowe v. State, 90 Fla. 255, 105 So. 829; Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 816,107 So. 245; McRae v. State, 62 Fla. 74, 57 So. 348. While it is incumbent upon the State to prove every element of the offense the proof may be by evidence of circumstances that are sufficient to support inference of the guilt of the offense found by the verdict. Folks v. State, 85 Fla. 238, 95 So. 619. Absolute metaphysical and demonstrative certainty is not essential to sufficient proof by circumstances in a prosecution for crime. Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 816, 107 So. 245; Lee v. State, 96 Fla. 59, 117 So. 699.
We find that the evidence in this case was not only consistent with the guilt of the defendant but, when taken as a whole was inconsistent with his innocence and was, therefore, sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. Parish v. State, 98 Fla. 877, 124 So. 444; Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 Sp. 360; Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 Sp. 246; Asher v. State, 90 Fla. 75, 105 So. 140; Lee v. State, 96 Fla. 59,117 So. 699; Davis v. State, 90 Fla. 816, 107 So. 245; Smith v. *Page 542 State, 101 Fla. 162, 133 So. 873; Simmons v. State, 99 Fla. 1216,128 So. 486; Kennedy v. State, 31 Fla. 428, 12 So. 858; Gantling v. State, 40 Fla. 237, 23 So. 857; Pate v. State,72 Fla. 97, 72 So. 517; Whetston v. State, 31 Fla. 240,12 So. 661.
The evidence here was sufficient to convince the jury to a moral certainty that the defendant in the court below, appellant here, killed the deceased in the manner alleged in the indictment.
On the whole record, no reversible error is disclosed. Therefore, the judgment should be affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, and ADAMS, J. J. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Williams v. State, 206 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…la.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 205. As to appellant Williams’ participation in the alleged crime, all evidence was circumstantial. In such a case the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused, Chason v. State, 1941, 148 Fla. 540, 4 So. 2d 691. The same formula is stated in differ [*449] ent words in Harris v. State, Fla. 1951, 53 So. 2d 827, 828, where the court said to warrant a conviction based on totally circumstantial evidence, the proof must he inconsistent with any re…
-
Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…a rooming house; manslaughter conviction upheld); Walker v. State, 152 Fla. 455, 13 [*325] So. 2d 4 (1943) (state’s evidence deemed sufficient to link defendant to the burglary of a store; burglary conviction upheld); Chason v. State, 148 Fla. 540, 4 So. 2d 691 (1941) (state's evidence deemed sufficient to sustain a second degree murder conviction); Victor v. State, 141 Fla. 508, 193 So. 762 (1939) (state’s evidence deemed sufficient to establish that the defendant was in possession of "live” lottery ticke…
-
Walker v. State, 152 Fla. 455 (Fla. 1943)…umstances that are sufficient to support inference of the guilt of the offense found by the verdict. Absolute metaphysical and demonstrative certainty is not essential to sufficient proof by circumstances in a prosecution for crime. Chason v. State, 148 Fla. 540, 4 So. (2nd) 691, 692. We think this evidence satisfies the rule. Under the facts of this case, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and sufficiency of the evidence were matters for the jury. The contention is also made that the trial co…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (18 total)
- Cannon v. State, 107 So. 360 (Fla. 1926)
- Lee v. State, 96 Fla. 59 (Fla. 1928)
- Doyle Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719 (Fla. 1925)
- Gantling v. State, 40 Fla. 237 (Fla. 1898)
- James Parish v. State, 98 Fla. 877 (Fla. 1929)
- Kennedy v. State, 31 Fla. 428 (Fla. 1893)
- Folks v. State, 85 Fla. 238 (Fla. 1923)
- Lowe v. State, 90 Fla. 255 (Fla. 1925)
- Whetston v. State, 31 Fla. 240 (Fla. 1893)
- M'Rae v. State, 62 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1911)