JAMES ANTHONY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially with opinion.
DAUKSCH, Judge,
concurring specially.
This is a case of first degree murder. The evidence of guilt of appellant was based solely on circumstantial evidence; there was no direct evidence that appellant committed the crime. The circumstances pointing to appellant’s guilt were strong and had the court given the old circumstantial evidence charge, no longer required to be given, In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla.1981); Rembert v. State, 445 So. 2d 337, 339 (Fla.1984), the jury most likely would have found appellant guilty. That said, I think the trial judge should have given a circumstantial evidence charge; it was within his discretion to do so and it is still good law that the state should be required to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence when a conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence.
Because the trial court was not required to give the instruction I cannot say it erred.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Securex v. Couto, 627 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…cts of this case, Seeurex provided transportation to Mr. Couto “for the exclusive personal use by the employee.” Generally, the term “exclusive use” means something more than the degree of possession or control found here. See, e.g., Hume v. Royal, 619 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied mem., 629 So. 2d 135 (Fla.1993) (by terms of easement, grantor did not grant exclusive use to grantee; grantor retained the right of access and full use and enjoyment of the easement); Hathcock v. Hathcock, 533 So. 2d 8…
-
Brannon v. Boldt, 958 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…but he did not. Feig, 100 So. 2d at 195, confirmed this premise in stating: “A dedicator may reserve all riparian rights appurtenant to the land encumbered by the easement dedicated.” Limiting language was contained in the easement in Hume v. Royal, 619 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). In contrasting Cartish, the Hume court stated: “The easement granted in Cartish simply did not contain the restrictive language which we find in this case.” Id. at 14. The lot owners in Cartish were seeking more than simply the…
-
Secret Oaks Owner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't OF Env't Prot., 704 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…itioner relies primarily on Lanier v. Jones, 619 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) and Cartish v. Soper, 157 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963), for the proposition that an easement holder can possess riparian rights. Respondent cites Hume v. Royale[Royal], 619 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) as an example of a case in which it was held that an easement holder did not have the right to construct a dock. 4. Neither Lanier, Cartish, nor Hume was a ease, like this one, that involved a dispute between a riparian owner an…
Authorities Cited
- In re the USE BY the Trial Courts OF the Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases & the Standard Jury Instructions in Misdemeanor Cases, 431 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1981)
- Rembert v. State, 445 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1984)