ROBERT L. BROTHERS, III, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonable Hypothesis Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
MONACO, J.
The appellant, Robert L. Brothers, III, was convicted at jury trial of robbery, in violation of section 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2002), based largely on circumstantial evidence. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the motion of Mr. Brothers for a judgment of acquittal.
When the evidence against a criminally accused person is circumstantial, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted if the state fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. See State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989); Wilson v. State, 493 So. 2d 1019, 1022 (Fla.1986); Everett v. State, 831 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Upon careful review of the transcript, we have concluded that the State introduced sufficient competent evidence that was inconsistent with the theory of events put forth by Mr. Brothers. The trial judge was, therefore, correct in denying the motion seeking a judgment of acquittal.
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grant v. State, 138 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…against a criminally accused person is circumstantial, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted if the state fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.” Brothers v. State, 853 So. 2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In such circumstances, “the proper task of the trial judge is to review the evidence, taking it in the light most favorable to the state, in order to determine whether there is competent evidence from which the jury could…
-
White v. State, 973 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…against a criminally accused person is circumstantial, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted if the state fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.” Brothers v. State, 853 So. 2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). See also Sanders v. State, 344 So. 2d 876, 876-77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (“circumstantial evidence must be so strong and convincing as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the defendants’ guilt and must exclude any r…
-
Babbs v. State, 187 So. 3d 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…gainst a criminally accused person, is circumstantial, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted if the state fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude .every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.” Brothers v. State, 853 So. 2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). In such circumstances, “the proper task of the trial judge is to review the evidence, taking it in the light most favorable to the state, in order to determine whether there is competent evidence from which the jury could…
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. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)
- Wilson v. State, 493 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1986)
- Mollie Everett v. State, 831 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)