JEROME WALLACE, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed Jerome Wallace's conviction for throwing a deadly missile into a dwelling, holding that circumstantial evidence—including the defendant's threat and his presence immediately after the brick came through the window—was sufficient to support the jury verdict.
The conviction is affirmed because the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the state, provides proof from which a jury could infer guilt to the exclusion of all other reasonable inferences. The defendant's threat combined with his presence immediately after the brick came through the window constitutes sufficient circumstantial evidence.
[1] Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for throwing a deadly missile into a dwelling when the victim testifies that the defendant threatened to throw a brick thro…
[2] A jury may infer guilt from circumstantial evidence, including a defendant's threat to commit a crime followed by the immediate commission of that crime.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the state, provides proof from which the jury could infer guilt to the exclusion of all other reasonable inferences”
Establishes the standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in a criminal conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWallace came to the victim's window asking for money. When she refused, he threatened to throw a brick through the window, saying "I'm going to throw …
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 Inference Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We withdraw our previously issued opinion and substitute the following in its place.
We affirm appellant’s conviction for throwing a deadly missile into a dwelling, concluding that the state’s evidence was sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal. Appellant was known to the occupant of the house, and he had come to her window one evening asking for money. When she refused he said, “I’m going to throw a brick through the window.” After that, the victim heard a crash and found a brick in her room. The curtains were blowing, and the victim saw appellant still outside the window.
Although the victim did not see appellant actually throw the brick, the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the state, provides proof from which the jury could infer guilt to the exclusion of all other reasonable inferences. See State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989). This is not a “mere presence” case, such as Shuler v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), in which there was no evidence presented that the defendant actually threw the rock. In this case, the victim testified that appellant told her he was going to throw the brick and immediately thereafter a brick came crashing through her window. The defendant’s reliance on E.J. v. State, 554 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) is misplaced because the facts are distinguishable from this case. This case includes an admission against interest as well as knowledge as to what was .thrown. In E.J., the defendant made no admission against interest and the trial .court was presented with no evidence of the projectile thrown.
Affirmed as to all issues.
GUNTHER, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)
- E.J. v. State, 554 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Pierson v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Shuler v. State, 801 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)