LEONARD HORNSBY, 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.
Leonard Hornsby appealed his conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer, challenging the sufficiency of evidence. The court affirmed, finding that Hornsby failed to preserve the issue for appellate review by not articulating specific legal grounds in his motion for judgment of acquittal at trial.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction because Hornsby failed to preserve the sufficiency-of-evidence issue for appellate review by not articulating legal grounds in his motion for judgment of acquittal. A defendant must present specific arguments to the trial court in such motions for appellate courts to review the issue.
[1] A defendant must articulate the legal grounds for a motion for judgment of acquittal in a failure of proof case to preserve the issue for appellate review.
[2] A general motion for judgment of acquittal without stating specific legal grounds is insufficient to preserve a sufficiency of the evidence challenge for appeal.
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“In a typical failure of proof case, such as this one, the defendant must articulate the legal grounds in a motion for judgment of acquittal for an appellate court to review the issue.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that a defendant must state specific legal grounds in a motion for judgment of acquittal to preserve sufficiency-of-evidence challenges for appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt the close of the state's case-in-chief, Hornsby moved for judgment of acquittal without stating any legal grounds. The trial court denied the motio…
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 Battery On A Law Enforcement Officer cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, the defendant challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer. We affirm because the defendant failed to preserve this issue for appellate review.
At the close of the state’s case, the defendant moved for judgment of acquittal without stating any legal grounds:
THE COURT: Let the record reflect that the jury has left. The State has rested. Do you have a motion to make?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: We move for judgment of acquittal.
THE COURT: As to each and every count?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes.
THE COURT: Taking [sic] in the light most favorable to the State, as I’m required to do at this juncture, I’m going to deny the motion as to each and every count.
The defendant asserts that the trial court improperly denied his motion for judgment of acquittal. In a typical failure of proof case, such as this one, the defendant must articulate the legal grounds in a motion for judgment of acquittal for an appellate court to review the issue. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.380(b); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1982); Johnson v. State, 478 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). The defendant’s failure to present any argument to the trial court bars our review of the issue on appeal. We observe that this is not a situation where the defendant’s conduct clearly did not constitute the crime for which he was convicted. If it were, it would be fundamental error and, therefore, reviewable notwithstanding the absence of a specific objection below. See Brown v. State, 652 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Burrell v. State, 601 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Nelson v. State, 543 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Furthermore, even if we were to address the sufficiency of the evidence argument, we would conclude that it lacks merit.
Affirmed.
FRANK, A.C.J., and PARKER and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffin v. State, 705 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…— which, as the court acknowledged, must be raised in a motion for judgment of acquittal — and the circumstance where the evidence affirmative [*575] ly shows that the defendant’s conduct “did not constitute” the charged offense); Hornsby v. State, 680 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)(finding fundamental error “where the defendant’s conduct clearly did not constitute the crime for which he was convicted”); Harris v. State, 647 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(finding fundamental error and reversing conviction for…
-
Awilda Rodriguez v. State, 964 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
-
Miller v. State, 712 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…counsel merely moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case “based on the lack of a prima facie case.” We conclude that such boilerplate language, without more, was insufficient to preserve the issue. Compare Hornsby v. State, 680 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (moving for judgment of acquittal as to each and every count insufficient to preserve sufficiency of the evidence issue). Even if we were to address the sufficiency of the evidence argument, we would conclude that the trial court’…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)
- Darrel Michael Abbott v. State, 478 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Nelson v. State, 543 So. 2d 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Burrell v. State, 601 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Brown v. State, 652 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)