STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES D. BURRELL, 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.
The State appeals the dismissal of criminal charges against Burrell for grand theft and possession of a vehicle with an altered identification number. The court reverses, holding that circumstantial evidence can establish a prima facie case sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, even though conviction requires the evidence to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Circumstantial evidence can establish a prima facie case sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, even though a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires the evidence to be inconsistent with the defendant's reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The determination of whether circumstantial evidence excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is a question for trial, not for the motion to dismiss stage.
[1] A defendant moving to dismiss criminal charges under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) must allege undisputed material facts that either fail to establish a…
[2] A defendant's motion to dismiss based on circumstantial evidence must demonstrate that the undisputed facts fail to establish a prima facie case against the defendant.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is true that a defendant may not be convicted solely upon circumstantial evidence unless the evidence is inconsistent with the defendant's reasonable hypothesis of innocence. This does not mean, however, that the evidence cannot establish a prima facie case sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”
Establishes the distinction between the prima facie case standard for surviving a motion to dismiss and the higher standard required for conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing the theft of a backhoe from a construction site, the State charged Burrell with second-degree grand theft and possession of a vehicle with a…
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 Second Degree Grand Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
The State complains that the circuit court should not have granted James Bur-rell’s motion to dismiss the criminal charges against him. We agree and reverse with directions to reinstate the charges.
Following the theft of a backhoe from a construction site, the State charged Burrell with second-degree grand theft and possession of a vehicle with an altered or removed vehicle identification number. Burrell moved to dismiss pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). When moving to dismiss under this rule, a defendant has the burden to allege that the material facts of the case are undisputed, describe what the material facts are, and demonstrate that the undisputed facts either (1) fail to establish a prima facie case, or (2) establish a valid defense. State v. Reese, 774 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Burrell’s motion averred that the evidence against him was whohy circumstantial and that he had given investigating officers a detailed innocent explanation of his recent possession of the stolen backhoe. Therefore, he contended, the State’s circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case. He was mistaken.
It is true that a defendant may not be convicted solely upon circumstantial evidence unless the evidence is inconsistent with the defendant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence. This does not mean, however, that the evidence cannot establish a prima facie case sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. See State v. Kalogeropolous, 758 So. 2d 110, 112 (Fla. 2000) (holding that to survive motion to dismiss State’s facts need only “meet the minimal requirement of a prima facie case”); State v. Ortiz, 766 So. 2d 1137, 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (reciting rule that court cannot grant motion to dismiss criminal charges simply because it concludes that the case will not survive a motion for judgment of acquittal). Whether the State’s circumstantial evidence excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence may only be decided at trial, after all of the evidence has been presented. Id.; State v. Bonebright, 742 So. 2d 290, 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
Therefore, we reverse with directions to reinstate the charges against Burrell.
WHATLEY and GREEN, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Conisha A. Cadore, 59 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…evidence unless the evidence is inconsistent with the defendant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence. This does not mean, however, that the evidence cannot establish a prima facie case sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.” State v. Burrell, 819 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see Ortiz, 766 So. 2d at 1142. . Based on Cadore’s statement that she had sold cocaine from the premises, evidence of recent cocaine sales to a confidential informant at Cadore’s residence, mail bearing Cadore’s name establ…
-
State v. Jaramillo, 951 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…motion to dismiss). Moreover, if the State bases its charges on circumstantial evidence, whether that evidence excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence may be decided only at trial, after the evidence has been presented. See State v. Burrell, 819 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that second-degree grand theft charge and charge for possession of a vehicle with an altered or removed vehicle identification number improperly dismissed where State’s circumstantial evidence met minimal requirement…
-
State v. GAY, 960 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…6 So. 2d at 1142. Thus, a trial court cannot dismiss criminal charges simply because it concludes that the case will not survive a motion for judgment of acquittal at trial. State v. Jaramillo, 951 So. 2d 97, 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); State v. Burrell, 819 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Dickerson, 811 So. 2d at 747; State v. Paleveda, 745 So. 2d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). In [*868] stead, if the State in good faith disputes any material fact, denial of the motion to dismiss is mandatory. Kalogeropolous,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Kalogeropolous, 758 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Ortiz, 766 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Lesmond Morris v. State, 742 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- State v. Bonebright, 742 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- State v. Reese, 774 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)