STANLEY LUKAS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
A conviction for driving under the influence cannot be sustained if the evidence is purely circumstantial and fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Stanley Lukas was found guilty by a jury of resisting an officer without violence and driving under the influence (DUI). The State's evidence for 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 Resisting An Officer Without Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Stanley Lukas appeals the judgment and sentence rendered following the jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of resisting an officer without violence and one count of driving under the influence. We find merit only in his argument that the trial court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the DUI charge.
Lukas’ motion should have been granted because the evidence presented by the State failed to establish by direct evidence that Lukas was either driving or in actual physical control of the truck1 and the circumstantial evidence failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989) (“Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”).
Accordingly, Lukas’ conviction for driving under the influence is reversed and Lukas is ordered discharged as to that offense. Lu-kas’ two convictions for resisting an officer without violence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
GOSHORN, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . § 316.193, Fla.Stat. (1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. Florida Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2016)…vidence to support a finding that Moore refused to submit to a lawful breath test. The foregoing circumstantial evidence excludes any reasonable hypothesis that Moore was not driving and/or in actual physical control of the vehicle. Lukas v. State, 627 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (where only proof of guilt is circumstantial, conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence). Forney observed Moore sitting in the driver’s seat of a running vehicl…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)