CLARENCE JONES, JR., 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.
Clarence Jones, Jr. was convicted of robbing a filling station attendant and sentenced to seven years. On appeal, Jones argued he was at a friend's home watching television and later at a bar at the time of the robbery, but the jury rejected his alibi defense and the appellate court found the evidence supported the guilty verdict.
The jury's rejection of Jones's alibi defense was proper because it was credible based on the state's contrary testimony, and the evidence amply supported the guilty verdict. The trial judge appropriately instructed the jury on the alibi defense, leaving the credibility determination to the jury.
“In order for one to avail himself of the defense of an alibi, that defense must cover the entire time when the presence of the accused was required for accomplishment of the crime. If this defense raises a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to whether or not the defendant was present when the crime was committed, this is sufficient for acquittal.”
Establishes the legal standard for an effective alibi defense requiring full temporal coverage and raising reasonable doubt as to presence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was charged with robbing Lovette, the assistant manager of a Super-Test Oil Company filling station, at approximately 10 p.m. The robbery involv…
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 Alibi Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, Clarence Jones, Jr., was convicted of the offense of robbery and sentenced to the state prison for a term of seven years. Represented by counsel throughout the trial, the defendant himself has prosecuted the appeal, brought before this court under his assertion that he has been wrongfully accused and convicted.
The robbery was committed upon one Lovette, assistant manager of Super-Test Oil Company, while he was engaged in his work at a filling station of that company. The deed transpired at approximately 10 o’clock at night. A pistol was used; Lovette was assaulted and severely injured; and the robber’s yield was $51 in cash.
Defendant offered the defense of an alibi. That defense means that at the time of the commission of the criminal offense charged in an information or an indictment, the accused was at a different place; and if at a different place, he could not have committed the crime. More tersely defined under common usage, He just wasn’t there, so he couldn’t have done it. Dees v. State, 1930, 99 Fla. 1144, 128 So. 485; and Blackwell v. State, 1920, 79 Fla. 709, 86 So. 224, 15 A.L.R. 465.
To support his defense, defendant offers explanation to the effect that, at the time of the offense involved, he was visiting in the home of a girl friend enjoying a quiet evening of entertainment through the medium of television programs. He elaborates on this by naming the programs, “The Rebel”, ending at 9:30 p. m., followed by “The Alaskan.” At the conclusion of the program, “The Rebel”, he went from his friend’s home to a place called Marcus’ Bar, arriving about ten minutes before ten and staying there until about 12:30.
In order for one to avail himself of the defense of an alibi, that defense must cover the entire time when the presence of the accused was required for accomplishment of the crime. If this defense raises a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to whether or not the defendant was present when the crime was committed, this is sufficient for acquittal. On the other hand, when the proof of an alibi depends upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence, it must be the jury who determines whether or not the evidence raises such a reasonable doubt. Caldwell & Larkins v. State, 1905, 50 Fla. 4, 39 So. 188; Johnston v. State, 1937, 127 Fla. 100, 172 So. 708; and Flowers v. State, 1943, 152 Fla. 649, 12 So.2d 772.
Unfortunately for the defendant, his defense that he wasn’t there and so couldn’t have done it became the subject of contrary testimony offered by the state that at the time of the deed charged, the defend*756ant was at the mentioned gasoline station and committed the mentioned crime. The jury chose not to accept the version of the defendant but believed that presented by the state. The trial judge appropriately charged the jury, including a charge on the defense of alibi. It was a question of whom the jury would believe. The evidence amply supports the verdict.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Costantino v. State, 224 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…le, must cover the entire time when the presence of the defendant was required to accomplish the crime. Blackwell v. State, 79 Fla. 709, 86 So. 224, 15 A.L.R. 465 (1920); Caldwell v. State, 50 Fla. 4, 39 So. 188 (1905); Jones v. State, Fla.App.1961, 128 So. 2d 754. The testimony of the “alibi witness”, even if admitted into evidence by deposition, does not sufficiently establish that the defendant was with the “alibi witness” during the entire time his presence was required under the law. Defendant’s next a…
-
Khalid Ali Pasha v. State, 225 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 2017)…9 Fla. 709, 86 So. 224, 227 (1920) (quoting Words and Phrases 298 (Nat’l Rptr. System ed., 1904)); accord Dees v. State, 99 Fla. 1144, 128 So. 485, 485 (1930); State ex rel. Mitchell v. Walker, 294 So. 2d 124, 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Jones v. State, 128 So. 2d 754, 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). “The proof of an alibi must include and cover the entire time when the presence of the accused was required to commit the offense charged.” Murphy v. State, 31 Fla. 166, 12 So. 453, 454 (1893); accord Caldwell v. State, 50 F…
-
Solomon v. State, 145 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…esses. The jury, however, is proper judge as to whether the testimony of alibi witnesses raises a reasonable doubt that the accused could have committed the offense. Grizzard v. State, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 161, 163; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1961, 128 So. 2d 754. Defendant further insists that the evidence as a whole was not sufficient to [*493] establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis. Although some of the evidence was circumstantial in nature and…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Will Blackwell and Robert Blackwell v. The State of Floirda, 79 Fla. 709 (Fla. 1920)
- Flowers v. State, 152 Fla. 649 (Fla. 1943)
- Caldwell v. State, 50 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1905)
- Dees v. State, 99 Fla. 1144 (Fla. 1930)
- Fulwood v. State, 152 Fla. 693 (Fla. 1943)
- Johnson v. State, 127 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1937)