ELIAS RAUSCH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1964-01-28
No. 63-254
Before CARROLL, HORTON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.
159 So. 2d 926 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1964) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt for statutory arson.

Facts & Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of statutory arson after a fire of incendiary origin was discovered. Evidence showed the defendant had motive, opportunity…

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.

Topics
Circumstantial Evidence Sufficiency Of Evidence

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Circumstantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The only substantial question raised by the appellant upon this appeal is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of the jury. The appellant was found guilty, adjudicated and sentenced to two years in the State Prison for statutory arson as set forth in § 806.06, Fla.Stat., F. S.A.1

The evidence revealed a fire of such a type and intensity as to suggest to qualified experts an incendiary origin. The defendant was proved to have had the opportunity and the motive. In addition, defendant was proved to be something of an expert on the collection of claims for fire damage by his prior experience in that matter upon previous business ventures. Evidence indicated that the appellant was at the scene fifteen minutes before the discovery of the fire which was already in an advanced state at the time of discovery. It was proved that traces of accelerants were present in the debris after the fire.

We think that the evidence, while entirely circumstantial, was such that the only reasonable deduction therefrom was the guilt of the appellant. This conclusion is to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis. See Williams v. State, Fla.1962, 143 So.2d 484.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
    …1st DCA 1966) (state’s evidence deemed sufficient to negate defendant’s trial testimony and establish a criminal homicide; defendant’s version of the homicide was consistent with guilt in any event; manslaughter conviction upheld); Rausch v. State, 159 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert, denied, 166 So. 2d 595 (Fla.1964) (state’s evidence deemed sufficient to link defendant to arson; arson conviction upheld); Trimble v. State, 102 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958) (state’s evidence deemed sufficient to establish tha…
  • Rausch v. State, 166 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1964)
    …Certiorari denied without opinion. 159 So. 2d 926.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw