CALVIN REWIS, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed first-degree murder conviction based on premeditated murder and felony murder theories, rejecting challenges to circumstantial evidence sufficiency and prosecutorial comments.
In a circumstantial evidence murder case, the State need only introduce competent evidence inconsistent with the defendant's theory; the jury then determines whether evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] In a circumstantial evidence case, the State need only introduce competent evidence inconsistent with the defendant's theory of innocence; the jury then determines whethe…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 the state is not required to rebut conclusively every possible variation of events that could be inferred from the evidence, but is required only to introduce competent evidence that is inconsistent with the defendant's theory of events; once that threshold burden is met, it becomes the jury's duty to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Court explaining the standard for circumstantial evidence sufficiency in murder cases, citing State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1989)
Appellant was charged with first-degree murder and robbery. The State presented evidence of appellant's motive, numerous conflicting statements to pol…
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
PER CURIAM.
In this first degree murder case the State proceeded on alternate theories of premeditated murder and felony murder, with robbery being the underlying felony. During the trial, the State presented ample evidence of appellant’s motive to commit the murder and the robbery. By demonstrating numerous conflicting statements made by appellant to the police and others, the State produced evidence that raised significant questions about appellant’s credibility, and in turn, about his hypothesis of innocence ultimately advanced at trial. Although the evidence concerning premeditation and robbery was circumstantial, the trial court did not err by submitting the case to the jury. See State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1989) (holding that in a circumstantial evidence case the state is not required to rebut conclusively every possible variation of events that could be inferred from the evidence, but is required only to introduce competent evidence that is inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of events; once that threshold burden is met, it becomes the jury’s duty to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.) Appellant’s second point, concerning the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument is completely without merit. See Davis v. State, 698 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1997).
AFFIRMED.
KAHN, WEBSTER and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)
- Davis v. State, 698 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1997)