FAYETE BROWN
v.
STATE
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a larceny conviction because the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, a requirement for convictions based on such evidence.
No, the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient because the circumstances proved were not so strong and cogent as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the defendant's guilt.
“Without the circumstantial evidence there was not sufficient direct evidence upon which to base a conviction.”
Establishes the reliance on circumstantial evidence due to weak direct evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of larceny of four cattle. The State's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence to supplement limited direct evidenc…
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 Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error brings for review conviction of the offense of larceny of certain cattle' described as “four cows marked crop split under bit in one ear, swallow fork in other ear and branded JE, a better and more particular, description of said four cows being to affiant unknown.”
*226The State relied in part upon circumstantial evidence for a conviction of the accused in this case. Without the circumstantial evidence there was not sufficient direct evidence upon which to base a conviction. The circumstantial evidence adduced to supplement the direct evidence did not meet the rule that when circumstantial evidence is relied on for a conviction the circumstances proved must be so strong and cogent as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the defendant’s guilt. All of the circumstances relied upon to supply the deficiency of direct evidence could have been trüe and yet the accused could have, under a reasonable hypothesis, been innocent of the offense charged. These enunciations are so elementary that it requires no citation of authorities to support either of them.
For the reasons stated, the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
It is so ordered.
Reversed and remanded.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Savage v. State, 152 Fla. 367 (Fla. 1943)…ntial, the law requires that such evidence, as a whole, must be so strong, cogent, and convincing as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant’s guilt. See Solomon [*375] v. State, 115 Fla. 310, 156 So. 401; Brown v. State, 127 Fla. 225, 172 So. 921; Free v. State, 142 Fla. 233, 194 So. 639. The decisions of this Court hold that in order to sustain a conviction in a criminal case for the negligent operation of an automobile on a highway, the evidence adduced to support the charge…
-
Holland v. State, 129 Fla. 363 (Fla. 1937)…0, 43 South. Rep. 318, and authorities therein cited; Davis v. State, 54 Fla. 34, 44 South. Rep. 757; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Beazley, 54 Fla. 311, 45 South. Rep. 761; Cross v. Aby, decided here at this term.” We have examined Brown v. State, 127 Fla. 225, 172 Sou. Rep. 921, emphasized by counsel for plaintiff in error, but it fails to- throw light'upon the case at bar. We hold that substantial justice was awarded in the lower court and the judgment entered below is hereby affirmed. AVi-iitfield, P.…
-
Harris v. State, 307 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…d in or [*220] der for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction, it must be “ . consistent with the accused’s guilt, inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.” Brown v. State, 1937, 127 Fla. 225, 172 So. 921; Miller v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So. 2d 423, 424; Gaetano v. State, Fla.App.1973, 273 So. 2d 84, 86; Whitehead v. State, Fla.App.1973, 273 So. 2d 146, 147-148.2 We are of the opinion that the facts sub judice are supportive of reaso…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence