WILLIE BROOKS, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Knight v. State, 107 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
  …urts have addressed state of mind elements, which are almost always proven by circumstantial evidence, and for which the special standard is, in our view, inappropriate. This confusion was also frankly acknowledged recently in [*467] Green v. State, 90 So. 3d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012): I am not entirely convinced that the outcome of this case is controlled by the special standard generally applicable to cases “where a conviction is wholly based on circumstantial evidence.” State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fl…
• State v. Sims, 110 So. 3d 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
  …ntent are quintessentially questions of fact, not law, and intent can rarely be proven by direct evidence: “Intent, a state of mind, is rarely susceptible of direct proof. It is almost always shown solely by circumstantial evidence.” Green v. State, 90 So. 3d 835, 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (emphasis added). In fact, intent usually is inferred based on circumstantial evidence. See Hardwick v. State, 630 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); State v. Tovar, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D2569, 2012 WL 5373443 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 2,…
• Tate v. State, 136 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
  …rt should rarely, if ever, grant a motion for judgment of acquittal on the issue of intent.’ ” Manuel v. State, 16 So. 3d 833, 835 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (quoting Washington v. State, 737 So. 2d 1208, 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)); see also Green v. State, 90 So. 3d 835, 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding that intent “is rarely susceptible of direct proof’ and “is almost always shown solely by circumstantial evidence” (citing Sebastiano v. State, 14 So. 3d 1160, 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009))); S.D. v. State, 882 So. 2d 44…

Authorities Cited

• Flagg v. State, 74 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
• Holmes v. State, 74 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)