S.R.G., 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.
The court held that there was insufficient circumstantial evidence to prove identity for criminal mischief, thus the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal.
S.R.G. was adjudicated delinquent for criminal mischief involving vandalizing an automobile. She argued insufficient circumstantial evidence to prove …
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 Circumstantial Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
S.R.G. challenges the disposition order of the circuit court adjudicating her delinquent for an act of criminal mischief involving vandalizing an automobile. She specifically maintains that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient circumstantial evidence to prove identity. We agree and reverse.
We realize that where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, a conviction may not be sustained no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The accepted standard of review, however, is not whether the evidence failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt, but whether there was substantial, competent evidence for [the factfinder] to so conclude.
Bradford v. State, 460 So. 2d 926, 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (citations omitted); see also Porter v. State, 752 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Following our de novo review of the instant record, see Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla.2002), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 2278, 156 L.Ed.2d 137 (2003), we conclude that the State did not provide competent, substantial evidence for the trial court to conclude that S.R.G. was the individual who vandalized the automobile. Accordingly, we reverse the adjudication of delinquency.
Reversed.
STRINGER, J., and SCHEB, JOHN M., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Fagan, 857 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…if the State fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188-89 (Fla.1989); S.R.G. v. State, 852 So. 2d 879, 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1808 (Fla. 2d DCA Aug.1, 2003). The State is not required to rebut conclusively every possible variation of events that could be inferred from the evidence but only to introduce competent evidence that is inconsistent with the de…
Authorities Cited
- Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 2002)
- Bradford v. State, 460 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Porter v. State, 752 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)