JOSIAH HATHAWAY, 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.
Josiah Hathaway appeals his convictions for attempted second-degree murder and carrying a concealed firearm. The appellate court rejected his primary argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine to exclude his admission about concealing a firearm, finding that the State presented sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti of the concealment offense independent of his admission.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion in limine. The State presented substantial evidence establishing the corpus delicti of the concealment offense independent of Appellant's admission. The court deferred to the trial court's discretion in ruling on the motion in limine absent an abuse of discretion.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a motion in limine is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] The State bears the burden to present substantial evidence tending to show the commission of a charged crime, which must at least show the existence of each element of th…
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 state has a burden to bring forth 'substantial evidence' tending to show the commission of the charged crime. This standard does not require the proof to be uncontradicted or overwhelming, but it must at least show the existence of each element of the crime”
Establishes the standard for sufficiency of evidence required by the State to prove each element of a charged crime.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Josiah Hathaway was charged with attempted second-degree murder and carrying a concealed firearm. He moved in limine to exclude his admissio…
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 Corpus Delicti Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Josiah Hathaway, appeals his convictions and sentences for attempted second-degree murder and carrying a concealed firearm. Appellant raises ten issues on appeal, only one of which merits a brief discussion. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine, wherein he argued that his admission that the firearm at issue was concealed in his waistband should be excluded from evidence because the State could not establish the corpus delicti of the concealment offense without his admission. After reviewing the record and considering the State’s evidence, we reject both Appellant’s argument and the State’s “agreement” on appeal that it failed to present substantial evidence that the offense of concealment occurred absent Appellant’s admission.* See Acoff v. State, 180 So.3d 185, 187-88 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“The state has a burden to bring forth ‘substantial evidence’ tending to show the commission of the charged crime. This standard does not require the proof to be uncontra-dicted or overwhelming, but it must at least show the existence of each element of the crime (Emphasis added) (Citation omitted)); see also Tanzi v. State, 964 So.2d 106, 116 (Fla. 2007) (explaining that it is within the trial court’s province to determine the sufficiency of the proof of the corpus delicti and holding that the trial court did hot abuse its discretion in finding the corpus delicti and in admitting the appellant’s confession); Black v. State, 120 So.3d 654, 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (noting that an appellate court must defer to a trial court’s, ruling on a motion in limine absent an abuse of discretion). In reaching our conclusion, we find Appellant’s reliance upon several cases addressing the issue of *621corpus delicti in the context of a motion for judgment of acquittal unavailing, especially given Appellant’s concession on appeal that the trial court did not err in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the concealment offense. We, therefore, affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences.
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS, RAY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.H. v. State, 264 So. 3d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…n law doctrine of corpus delecti, or the "corroboration rule." We review the trial court's admission of a confession over a corpus delicti objection for an abuse of discretion. See Tanzi v. State, 964 So. 2d 106, 116 (Fla. 2007) ; Hathaway v. State, 228 So. 3d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ; J.B. v. State, 166 So. 3d 813, 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). The term corpus delecti has been defined as "[t]he corroborating evidence that shows that a crime has been committed, other than a confession or an alleged accomplice's s…
-
S.H. v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…n law doctrine of corpus delecti, or the “corroboration rule.” We review the trial court’s admission of a confession over a corpus delicti objection for an abuse of discretion. See Tanzi v. State, 964 So. 2d 106, 116 (Fla. 2007); Hatahway v. State, 228 So. 3d 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); J.B. v. State, 166 So. 3d 813, 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). The term corpus delecti has been defined as “[t]he corroborating evidence that shows that a crime has been committed, other than a confession or an alleged accomplice’s sta…
Authorities Cited
- Tanzi v. State, 964 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2007)
- Acoff v. State, 180 So. 3d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Black v. State, 120 So. 3d 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)