ANDREW J. MORRIS, 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.
Morris was charged with cocaine possession after items including crack cocaine were found near him following his flight from police. The Florida Supreme Court remanded the case to review whether the trial court erred in denying Morris's motion for judgment of acquittal, and the appellate court affirmed the denial, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to allow the case to proceed to the jury.
The trial court correctly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal because the state introduced competent evidence inconsistent with Morris's theory that the cocaine had never been in his possession, satisfying the state's burden in a circumstantial evidence case.
[1] A motion for judgment of acquittal made at the conclusion of the state's case is not waived by failing to renew the motion at the conclusion of all the evidence.
[2] In a circumstantial evidence case, the state satisfies its burden to survive a motion for judgment of acquittal by introducing competent evidence inconsistent with the de…
Previewing 2 of 3 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, such as this, in order to survive a motion for judgment of acquittal the state is required only to introduce competent evidence inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case.”
Establishes the legal standard for denying a motion for judgment of acquittal in circumstantial evidence cases.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorris fled from police officers who observed his pants pockets were tucked inside his pants and his hands were empty. When apprehended, officers foun…
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 Possession Of Contraband cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
The supreme court, having determined that a motion for judgment of acquittal made at the conclusion of the state’s case is not waived by failing to renew the motion at the conclusion of all the evidence, has remanded this case to us to review the issue as to whether the trial court erred in not granting the motion for judgment of acquittal.
Because we agree that on the merits the trial court was correct in not granting the motion, we affirm on this issue.
In a circumstantial evidence case, such as this, in order to survive a motion for judgment of acquittal the state is required only to introduce competent evidence inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case. State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1989). It was appellant’s theory that the cocaine found at the scene had never been in his possession.
To rebut this theory, the state introduced the following evidence:
1. When Morris fled, two officers noticed that his pants pockets were tucked inside his pants and his hands were empty.
2. When Morris was apprehended, the officers found near him a cassette tape, some Juicy Fruit gum, forty cents in change, and a plastic baggie containing crack cocaine.
3. Although the area was wet with rain which had fallen during the preceding half hour, these items were dry.
4. Morris was chewing Juicy Fruit gum when he was apprehended.
5. When Morris was apprehended, the officers noticed that his pants pockets were turned outside his pants.
This evidence, collectively, satisfied the state’s burden to introduce evidence inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case and justified the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 776 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…o the Jett burglary, Wilson’s connection to that crime was circumstantial, but the state is only required to introduce competent evidence inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of the case. State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1989); Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Wilson’s theory was he had not been involved in either of the burglaries but that he had been left on the road, and his only role was to act as a fence. His story was contradicted by the deputy who observed him at one of t…
-
Durham v. State, 738 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…had just purchased cocaine, and a marked $20.00 bill used by the policewoman to buy cocaine was found on his person shortly after the transaction. This evidence was sufficient to withstand Durham’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); [*479] Forestal v. State, 724 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Finally, Durham asserts the sentence he received on count two is illegal because it exceeds the statutory maximum of five years for a third degree felony. On count o…
-
George v. State, 743 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1989); Bratcher v. State, [*1174] 727 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Morns v. State, 727 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). COBB, W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)