ANNIE BELLAMY, ANNIE IRENE BELLAMY AND DAVIS BELLAMY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Three defendants convicted of murder in Seminole County appealed their convictions on grounds that a grand jury was improperly selected due to the omission of one qualified juror's name, and that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the convictions based on insufficient evidence.
The Court reversed the judgment, finding that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The circumstantial evidence did not meet the standard requiring that the circumstances taken together be of a conclusive nature, leading to a reasonable and moral certainty of guilt and being inconsistent with innocence. The Court did not decide the grand jury selection issue, instead relying on the insufficiency of evidence.
“the circumstances when taken together must be of a conclusive nature and tendency, leading on the whole to a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no one else committed the offense charged. It is not sufficient that the facts create a strong probability of and be consistent with guilt. They must be inconsistent with innocence.”
Establishes the legal standard for sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in criminal convictions
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnnie Bellamy, Annie Irene Bellamy, and Davis Bellamy were jointly indicted for the murder of Albert Gardner on June 26, 1927, in Seminole County. Ann…
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 Sufficiency Of Circumstantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Ellis, C. J.
The plaintiffs in error were jointly indicted for the murder of Albert Gardner in Seminole County on the 26th of June, 1927. Annie Bellamy was found guilty of murder in the second degree as principal of the first degree and the other two were found guilty of the same degree of murder but as principals of the second degree.
They obtained a writ of error and seek a reversal of the judgment, first because of an error of the clerk in failing to place the name of one of the veniremen, who had been previously examined and found qualified to serve as a juror, upon a slip of paper and deposit it with slips containing the names of others in a hat from which eighteen names of persons were drawn to serve as grand jurors.
That method of selecting a grand jury is prescribed by statute. See Sec. 2777 Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920.
Twenty-seven of the original list of thirty-six persons were qualified to serve. Their names should all have been placed in a box or hat from which the names of eighteen were to have been drawn to serve as a grand jury. The name of one was omitted through error, so that twenty-six names went into the box or hat instead of twenty-seven. So the plaintiffs in error say that the indictment which was found against them by the grand jury drawn and selected in that manner was bad, illegal and constituted no valid accusation against them. Second, that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The evidence in this case was entirely circumstantial. There were no eye witnesses to the killing of Gardner, who was shot by some person or persons who used a shot gun.
The rule as to the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence for conviction of crime has been stated several times by this Court. In an opinion by Mr. Justice Terrell in the case of Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 So. R. 246, the rule was stated as follows: "the circumstances when taken together must be of a conclusive nature and tendency, leading on the whole to a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no one else committed the offense charged. It is not sufficient that the facts create a strong probability of and be consistent with guilt. They must be inconsistent with innocence.” See also Pate v. State, 72 Fla. 97, 72 So. R. 517; Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. R. 360.
A discussion of the facts would be of no benefit.
We are of the opinion that the evidence did not measure up to the rule in such cases and was not sufficient in law to sustain the verdict, so the judgment is reversed.
Strum and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Buford, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mayo v. State, 71 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1954)…on- to convict a person charged with a crime, the evidence must not only be consistent with the defendant’s guilt but must also be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. Head v. State, Fla.1952, 62 So. 2d 41; Bellamy v. State, 96 Fla. 808, 119 So. 137. And evidence which leaves one with “nothing stronger than a suspicion” that the defendant committed the crime is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53, 57, 163 So. 223, 224. Circumstantial evidence is nev…
-
James Parish v. State, 98 Fla. 877 (Fla. 1929)…. 858; Gantling v. State, 40 Fla. 237, 23 So. R. 857; Jenkins v. State, 35 Fla. 737, 18 So. R. 182; Pate v. State, 72 Fla. 97, 72 So. R. 517; Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. R. 360; Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 So. R. 246; Bellamy v. State, 96 Fla. 808; 119 So. R. 137. See also Kilcrease v. State, 96 Fla. 91, 117 So. R. 863. The most that the evidence in this case establishes is the existence of suspicious circumstances. In Gustine v. State, 86 Fla. 24, 97 So. R. 207, this Court say: “If the fa…
-
Nadean O. McARTHUR v. Nourse, 369 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1979)…See, e. g., Driggers v. State, 164 So. 2d 200 (Fla.1964); Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1956); Head v. State, 62 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1952); Lyons v. State, 47 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1950); Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53, 163 So. 223 (1935); Bellamy v. State, 96 Fla. 808, 119 So. 137 (1928); Tillman v. State, 353 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Donald v. State, 344 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Sanders v. State, 344 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Interest of B. S. v. State, 320 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). . In…
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
- Cannon v. State, 107 So. 360 (Fla. 1926)
- Doyle Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719 (Fla. 1925)
- Pate v. State, 72 Fla. 97 (Fla. 1916)