TONYA OLIVER
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A motion for judgment of acquittal should not be granted unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the State can be sustained under the law.
[1] In evaluating a motion for judgment of acquittal, the defendant is deemed to admit not only the facts stated in the evidence adduced but also every conclusion favorable t…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 [trial court] should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the [State] can be sustained under the law.”
Standard for evaluating motions for judgment of acquittal, citing Lynch v. State
Tonya Oliver appealed from a conviction in Miami-Dade County Court after the trial court denied her motion for judgment of acquittal.…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 23, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1532 Lower Tribunal No. B24-5507 ________________
Tonya Oliver, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Marcus Bach Armas, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Amy Weber, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Camilo Montoya, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Garcia v. State, 373 So. 3d 1213, 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“In moving for a judgment of acquittal, the defendant ‘admits not only the facts stated in the evidence adduced, but also admits every conclusion favorable to the [State] that a jury might fairly and reasonably infer . . . . The [trial court] should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the [State] can be sustained under the law.’” (quoting Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 1974))); Gilbert v. State, 347 So. 2d 1087, 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (“[W]here the circumstances were such as to ordinarily induce fear in the mind of a reasonable man, then the victim may be found to be in fear, and actual fear need not be strictly and precisely shown.”); H.R. v. State, 298 So. 3d 1217, 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“[T]he fundamental error exception does not permit appellate review of unpreserved error in the State’s evidentiary failure to prove the crime/delinquent act unless the evidence failed to establish the commission of any crime/delinquent act whatsoever.”).