SEE PAGAN
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.
Appellant Pagan appeals his conviction for petit theft of a library book. The Ninth Judicial Circuit Appellate Division affirms the conviction, finding substantial competent evidence supported the trial court's denial of motions for judgment of acquittal.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding that when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of petit theft and exclude the appellant's hypothesis of innocence that he purchased the book.
[1] The standard of review for a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is de novo.
[2] When reviewing a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, an appellate court must draw every conclusion from the evidence favorable to the State.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“An appellant admits the facts in evidence, and the appellate court must draw every conclusion therefrom favorable to the State. If after viewing the evidence most favorable to the State, a jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of all elements of the crime charged (here, Petit Theft of a public library book), and the exclusion of Appellant's hypothesis of innocence (that he purchased the book), a conviction should be sustained.”
Establishes the standard of review for motions for judgment of acquittal—the appellate court views facts favorably to the state and sustains conviction if jury could find all elements beyond reasonable doubt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe alarm sounded when Appellant left the library. A book was found in his bag that was not demagnetized (unlike books sold by the library), was not s…
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 Hypothesis Of Innocence cases and more on FLexlaw
Before POWELL, GRINCEWICZ, and TURNER, J.J.
PER CURIAM.
FINAL ORDER AFFIRMING TRIAL COURT
Appellant appeals his conviction for Petit Theft. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case and at the close of all the evidence. We dispense with oral argument pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.320. After careful consideration of the briefs, the record on appeal, the transcript of the trial and the applicable legal authorities, and finding no error, we affirm. 2 of 3
The principles applicable to the review of a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal are as follows. The standard of review is de novo. An appellant admits the facts in evidence, and the appellate court must draw every conclusion therefrom favorable to the State. If after viewing the evidence most favorable to the State, a jury could find , beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of all elements of the crime charged (here, Petit Theft of a public library book), and the exclusion of Appellant’s hypothesis of innocence (that he purchased the book), a conviction should be sustained. Generally, an appellate court will not reverse a conviction which is supported by substantial evidence. See Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002); J.N.N. v. State, 877 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Applying these principles to the record before us, we find that there was substantial competent evidence1 to justify the trial court’s submission of the case to the jury and to support the jury’s verdict of guilty.
AFFIRMED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida this __11th___ day of __May____, 2012.
_/S/________________________
ROM W. POWELL Senior Judge
/S/
_/S/_________________________ DONALD E. GRINCEWICZ THOMAS W. TURNER Circuit Judge Circuit Judge
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing order was furnished to Kimberly M. DeVries, Assistant Public Defender, 435 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 400, Orlando, Florida 32801; Dugald McMillan, Assistant State Attorney, 415 N. Orange Avenue, Ste. 200, Orlando, Florida 32802-1673; and Honorable Leon B. Cheek, 425 N. Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801, by mail, this __11th__ day of __May___, 2012.
__/S/_______________________________
Judicial Assistant
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002)
- J.J.N. v. State, 877 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)