SEE JONES
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.
Varnes appealed his conviction for petty theft from an Albertsons store, arguing the trial judge erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence of criminal intent. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that a rational jury could reasonably infer Varnes knowingly participated in the scheme despite his fiancé's trial testimony suggesting his innocence.
The trial court did not err in denying the motions for judgment of acquittal. A rational jury could reasonably infer that Varnes left the store knowing some merchandise was not rung up and paid for, and that the $40 he handed to Jova was insufficient to cover the items he took. The question of criminal intent in a circumstantial evidence case with inconsistency between the defendant's innocence theory and competent evidence is for the jury to resolve.
[1] A jury may disbelieve all or any part of a witness's testimony when determining guilt.
[2] A motion for judgment of acquittal admits all facts in evidence and every conclusion favorable to the state that a rational jury might infer.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In a circumstantial evidence case in which there is an inconsistency between the defendant's theory of innocence and the competent substantial evidence viewed most favorably to the state, the question of criminal intent is for the jury to resolve, and a motion for judgment of acquittal must be denied.”
Establishes the standard for review of judgments of acquittal motions when intent is disputed and evidence is circumstantial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVarnes, an unemployed former Albertsons employee, came through a checkout line operated by his fiancé Natalie Jova twice on the same day. Each time, J…
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 Inference cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the County Court of Orange County, Florida
Honorable Nancy L. Clark, County Judge
Scott D. Bishop, Assistant Public Defender for Appellant
No appearance for Appellee
Before Powell, Munyon, and S. Kest, J. J.
FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING LOWER COURT
Appellant Varnes appeals from a conviction of petty theft of merchandise from an Albertsons’ store after a jury trial, contending that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case and as renewed at the close of all the evidence. We dispense with oral argument pursuant to Fla. App. R. 3.920. We have carefully reviewed appellant’s brief, the record on appeal and the transcript of the trial. The State did not favor us with an answer brief. Finding no error, we affirm.
The facts as shown by the evidence are as follows: Appellant, an unemployed former employee of the Albertson’s store, came twice through a checkout line operated by his fiancé Natalie Jova.1 Weekly D1286 (Fla. 4th DCA June 9, 2010). The motion admits all
2 Jova was charged jointly with appellant and entered a plea of nolo contendere prior to Varnes’ trial. facts in evidence adduced, but also every conclusion favorable to the state that a rational jury might fairly and reasonably infer from the evidence. Id. An appellate court must apply the substantial competent evidence standard and consider all reasonable inferences from the evidence most favorable to the state. Slack v. State, 30 So. 3d 684, 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). In a circumstantial evidence case in which there is an inconsistency between the defendant’s theory of innocence and the competent substantial evidence viewed most favorably to the state, the question of criminal intent is for the jury to resolve, and a motion for judgment of acquittal must be denied. Floyd v. State, 850 So. 2d 383, 397 (Fla. 2003).
In reviewing the evidence, we first point out that merely because Jova testified that Varnes lacked criminal intent does not carry the day for him. It is well settled that a juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of a witness’ testimony. Next it is our view that a rational jury could (and in this case did) reasonably infer that Varnes left the store knowing that some items of the merchandise were not rung up and paid for, and that the $40 dollars he handed Jova was not enough to cover the total cost of the items he took out of the store.
Consequently, we conclude the trial judge did not err in denying the motions for judgment of acquittal. The judgment appealed from is, therefore
AFFIRMED.
DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of August, 2010.
__/S/_______________________________
Rom W. Powell, Senior Judge
__/S/_______________________________ __/S/_______________________________ Lisa T. Munyon, Circuit Judge
Sally D. M. Kest, Circuit Judge CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy hereof has been furnished to Scott D. Bishop, Assistant Public Defender, attorney for appellant, 435 N. Orange Ave., Suite 400, Orlando FL 32801, and to the Office of the State Attorney,415 N. Orange Ave., Orlando FL 32801, by mail, this 4th day of August, 2010.
____/S/____________________________
Judicial Assistant
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Floyd v. State, 850 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2003)
- Slack v. State, 30 So. 3d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)