JOHN HENRY BUFFORD, 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.
John Henry Bufford appeals his conviction for robbery with a firearm, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the State failed to prove he used a firearm. The appellate court affirms the conviction, finding the victim's testimony established sufficient evidence of the firearm element.
Yes. The victim's clear and credible testimony that a black handgun was placed in her face during the robbery constituted sufficient evidence to support the firearm element of the robbery charge, and the trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal.
[1] A motion for judgment of acquittal should be denied if the State presents competent evidence establishing each element of the crime.
[2] When considering a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State.
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“A motion for judgment of acquittal is designed to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence. If the State presents competent evidence to establish each element of the crime, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be denied.”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating motions for judgment of acquittal in Florida.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBufford was charged with robbery with a firearm. The victim, Acosta, testified that during the robbery, someone put a gun in her face—specifically a b…
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 Reasonable Inference cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, J.
John Henry Bufford appeals his conviction of robbery with a firearm.1 He contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal based on his contention that the State failed to prove that he used a firearm in the commission of the robbery. He further asserts that certain unobjected to comments made by the prosecutor during closing argument were improper and constitute fundamental error.
We affirm. A motion for judgment of acquittal is designed to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence. If the State presents competent evidence to establish each element of the crime, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be denied. State v. Williams, 742 So. 2d 509, 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
The court should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence, when viewed in light most favorable to the State, fails to establish a prima facie case of guilt. Dupree v. State, 705 So. 2d 90, 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
In moving for a judgment of acquittal, a defendant admits not only the facts stated in the evidence, but also every reasonable conclusion favorable to the State that the fact-finder might fairly infer from the evidence. Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974).
It is the trial judge’s task to review the evidence to determine the presence or absence of competent evidence from which a jury could infer guilt to the exclusion of all other inferences. State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 189 (Fla.1989).
We review the record de novo to determine whether sufficient evidence supports the verdict. Williams, 742 So. 2d at 511.
Bufford argues that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that he possessed a firearm during the commission of the robbery. However, at trial, Acosta, the victim, testified as follows:
A. Before I knew it, someone was right in my face. Actually what was in my face was a gun, and I noticed there was — it was a body behind the gun_
Q. Can you describe the gun generally?
A. It was black.
Q. Was it a big gun?
First of all, was it a handgun or a rifle?
A. It was a handgun. Like — seemed like it was comfortable in his hand. I can’t give you a complete description of it, but I do remember seeing the front of it knowing that it was in his hand.
Q. Okay. Are you familiar, are you familiar with guns?
A. I’ve seen different types.
Q. Was it a small gun or a large gun?
A. Say something that comfortably fits into one’s hand like a hand held gun. * * * Q. Okay. When the individual was pointing' — -was the gun pointing right at you?
A. Yeah, in my face. * * * A. I thought — I thought he was going to kill me. I thought he was going to throw himself into my car, take me, kill me, rape me. My purse was sitting in the front seat.
Q. Were you in fear of your life and in fear that he would shoot you?
A. Uh-huh. This testimony was sufficient to support the trial court’s denial of Bufford’s motion for judgment of acquittal in relation to the allegation that he possessed a firearm during the commission of the robbery. Akins v. State, 838 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
We also reject Bufford’s contention that the prosecutor made an improper closing argument. Our review of the State’s closing argument demonstrates that it was entirely appropriate. That may explain why Bufford’s trial counsel did not object to the State’s closing.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ, concur. . §§ 812.13(1) & (2)(a); 775.087, Fla. Stat. (2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Odom, 56 So. 3d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…fully and knowingly manufactured or possessed methamphetamine and/or pseudoephed-rine. The trial court granted Odom’s motion without explanation. A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Bufford v. State, 844 So. 2d 812, 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). The motion should be denied if the State presents competent evidence to establish each element of the offense. Id. In moving for a judgment of acquittal, a defendant admits not only the facts stated in the evidence, but als…
-
Nooe v. State, 892 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…owed was that the Center may have been mismanaged during his tenure as executive director but not that criminal conduct had occurred. The standard of review applicable to denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal was set out in Bufford v. State, 844 So. 2d 812, 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003): A motion for judgment of acquittal is designed to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence. If the State presents competent evidence to establish each element of the crime, a motion for judgment of acquittal should…
-
Izquierdo v. State, 177 So. 3d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…dgment of acquittal, all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. See Irizarry v. State, 905 So. 2d 160, 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); see also Nooe v. State, 892 So. 2d 1135, 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). As explained in Bufford v. State, 844 So. 2d 812, 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003): A motion for judgment of acquittal is designed to challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence. If the State presents competent evidence to establish each element of the crime, a motion for judgment of acquittal should…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)
- Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1974)
- State v. Williams, 742 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Burney v. State, 705 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Dupree v. State, 705 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Akins v. State, 838 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)