CHARLES WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The appellate court reversed a conviction for armed robbery due to insufficient evidence. The court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the State did not establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The State failed to establish a prima facie case of robbery against the defendant.
“The only question preserved for review is the sufficiency of the'evidence.”
Establishes the sole issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State relied on circumstantial evidence to convict the appellant of armed robbery. There was no positive identification of the appellant. The evid…
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 Armed Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal, the appellant seeks review of an adverse judgment, conviction and sentence for armed robbery. The only question preserved for review is the sufficiency of the'evidence.
The State relies on circumstantial evidence. There was no positive identification made, and we find from the record failure on the part of the State to make a prima facie case of robbery against the defendant, in that it did not meet the tests set forth in Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 So. 246; Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53, 163 So. 223; Dedge v. State, 128 Fla. 343, 174 So. 725; Rivers v. State, 140 Fla. 487, 192 So. 190; Hubbard v. State, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 850; Davis v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 629. The evidence failed to establish beyond and to the exclusion of reasonable doubt that the appellant, and no one else, was criminally responsible for the act charged.
Therefore the judgment, conviction, and sentence here under review be and is hereby reversed, with directions to discharge the appellant from the cause.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Anderson v. State, 241 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1970)…claim surprise as to any evidence which tended to establish him as an aider or abettor and the instructions under Fla.Stat., § 776.011, F.S.A. were appropriate and proper. See Jacobs v. State, 184 So. 2d 711 (Fla.App.lst, 1966) and Prather v. State, 182 So. 2d 273 (Fla.App.2d, 1966), where the Court said: “Since 1957 under that statute, an accessory before the fact may be indicted or informed against as though he were the principal without alleging the facts by which he aided and abetted or advised and procu…
-
Urquhart v. State, 211 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…ing § 901.19(1) and thereby causing the resulting search and seizure of Exhibits 1-7 to be invalid, the seizure of Exhibits 2-7 would be invalid under the authority of O’Neil v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 40, and Prather v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 273. Exhibits 2-7 consist of personal property re [*84] moved from the house of Mrs. Salgado as a result of the arrest. In Prather we said at page 275: “The search was unreasonable and the court erred in denying the motion to suppress. Law enforcement…
-
Wright v. State, 402 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…principals in the second degree and accessories before the fact which were distinguished by the fact that the principal was present at the scene of the crime. Today all aiders and abettors are equally responsible as principals. See Prather v. State, 182 So. 2d 273 (Fla.2d DCA 1966). . In McCoy v. State, supra, the court held that “[i]n order to hold one guilty [as an aider and abettor] he must not only be present but he must be aiding, abetting, advising, encouraging or assisting such third person to commit…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hoyt Dan Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1956)
- Doyle Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719 (Fla. 1925)
- Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1935)
- Rivers v. State, 140 Fla. 487 (Fla. 1939)
- Gus R. Dedge v. State, 128 Fla. 343 (Fla. 1937)
- Hubbard v. State, 73 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1954)
- Morton R. Hirschberg and Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Julius Hirschberg v. Duval Cnty., 73 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1954)