LOUIS NASH, 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.
Louis Nash was convicted by jury of conspiracy to commit grand larceny and grand larceny in a case involving unlicensed, stolen whiskey. The appellate court affirmed the conspiracy conviction but reversed the grand larceny conviction due to insufficient evidence.
The conspiracy to commit grand larceny conviction is affirmed because sufficient evidence showed Nash was party to the conspiracy and knew the whiskey was stolen. The grand larceny conviction is reversed because the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish Nash's guilt—it was consistent with guilt but not inconsistent with reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
“It is well established that where circumstantial evidence is relied upon for proof of guilt, such evidence must be not only consistent with guilt but also inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”
This establishes the legal standard applied to reverse the grand larceny conviction due to insufficient circumstantial evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceState Beverage Department agents, posing as purchasers, attempted to buy unlicensed whiskey to discover its source. Through Nash and others, they loca…
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 Conspiracy To Commit Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was informed against, tried before a jury and found guilty of conspiracy to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. The sentences are fifteen months in the State penitentiary on the conspiracy to commit grand larceny and five years on the grand larceny, the sentences to run concurrently.
On this appeal, the appellant raises three points. The first point questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction of conspiracy to commit grand larceny. The second point questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction for grand larceny. The third point questions the sufficiency of the evidence as to both counts because of the claimed failure of the State to prove lack of consent on the part of the owner of the property which was stolen.
The facts are extremely lengthy and complicated. The testimony covers almost 1000 pages. We think that it is unnecessary to give a detailed statement of the evidence noted to determine this appeal. In general, it may be said that the evidence showed an attempt by the State Beverage Department, acting through .its agents and cooperating conspirators, to purchase unlicensed “island” whiskey. The purpose of this effort was to discover the source of untaxed whiskey which the agents knéw was being brought into this State from the neárby islands.
*392In carrying out their plan, the agents were put in contact with the appellant Nash. Acting through him and others the agents discovered that they were able to purchase a truck load of whiskey which was not only untaxed but also stolen.
There is sufficient evidence m this record to convince a jury that appellant Nash was a party to the conspiracy, and that he knew that the whiskey was to he stolen. There is also evidence which would support a finding by the jury that, after the crime was accomplished, Nash assisted in the delivery of the whiskey to the purchasers, who were actually agents but were not known by appellant to be such. We therefore reach the conclusion that the conviction upon the count charging conspiracy to commit grand larceny must be affirmed. See Pine v. United States, 135 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1943); 15 C.J.S. Conspiracy § 39.
A consideration of the evidence upon the charge of grand larceny reveals that it is insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant Nash. It is well established that where circumstantial evidence is relied upon for proof of guilt, such evidence must be not only consistent with guilt but also inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. State v. Trafficante, Fla.App. 1961, 136 So.2d 264; Ricard v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 677.
The State suggests that, because some of the physical evidence of the crime of larceny was not brought to this Court, we are precluded from a determination of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction of this appellant. A reading of the record convinces us that none of the physical evidence would have been relevant to the actions of this appellant or tend to show his participation in the crime of grand larceny.
The judgment and sentence of the appellant Louis Nash for the crime of conspiracy to commit grand larceny is affirmed. The judgment and sentence of appellant Louis Nash for the crime of grand larceny is reversed and he is discharged therefrom.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rhoden v. State, 227 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…dence is relied on for proof of guilt, such evidence “must not only be consistent with defendant’s guilt, but it must also be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence.” Driggers v. State, 164 So. 2d 200 (Fla.1964). Nash v. State, 188 So. 2d 391 (Fla.App. 1966). [*351] Another rule applicable here applies to fingerprint evidence—namely, that fingerprint evidence must meet the requirement that the circumstances must be such that the print could have been made only at the time the crime was c…
-
Whitehead v. State, 273 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)…n, such evidence must be consistent with guilt; but further, must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Rhoden v. State, 227 So. 2d 349 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1969); LaMonte v. State, 145 So. 2d 889 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1962); Nash v. State, 188 So. 2d 391 (3d D.C.A.Fla. [*148] 1966) cert. den. 389 U.S. 857, 88 S.Ct. 93, 19 L.Ed.2d 123. The circumstances, which themselves must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, must be of such a conclusive nature that the defendant’s guilt is proven beyond a reasona…
-
Roberts v. State, 188 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…piracy to commit grand larceny is affirmed. The judgment and sentence of appellant Malcolm Roberts for the crime of grand larceny is reversed and he is discharged therefrom. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. . See Nash v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 391.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pine v. United States, 135 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1943)
- State v. Trafficante, 136 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Ricard v. State, 181 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)