WILLIAM JULIAN FORBES, 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.
William Julian Forbes was convicted by jury of possessing and uttering forged money orders and forged instruments based on circumstantial evidence. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to prove the money orders were actually forged, as required for conviction.
The conviction is reversed because the State failed to prove an essential element of the crimes charged—that the money orders were actually forged. While the circumstantial evidence raised the possibility the money orders were part of the burglary loot, it equally supported the possibility they had been regularly issued before the burglary, failing to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
“in order to sustain a criminal conviction circumstantial evidence must be such that it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence”
Establishes the legal standard for circumstantial evidence in criminal cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA burglary at Curley's Market resulted in the theft of a money order machine and 16 blank money orders. Forbes negotiated two money orders that had be…
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 Uttering Forged Instruments cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was found guilty by a jury, adjudicated guilty, and sentenced to a total of fifteen years in the State penitentiary upon two counts charging the possession of forged money orders and two counts charging the uttering of forged instruments. The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and the adjudication. We find the evidence in the record insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. We reverse the judgment and sentence.
The record shows the following:
One, a business establishment known as Curley’s Market was the object of burglary.
Two, a money order machine and 16 blank money orders were stolen from Curley’s Market in the burglary.
Three, two money orders which had been issued to Curley’s Market, were negotiated by the appellant.
Four, the money orders negotiated by the appellant were not in the store after the burglary.
Five, it was not established, that they had been in the store before the burglary.
Six, the appellant endorsed and used the two money orders as payments upon a delinquent account which existed prior to the burglary.
Seven, the appellant attempted to explain his possession of the two money orders by testifying that they were paid to him by the persons whose names appeared as the makers.
The State urges that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant was guilty of possessing forged money orders and uttering them as forged money orders and uttering them as forged instruments. But the rule has often been stated that in order to sustain a criminal conviction circumstantial evidence must be such that it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Mayo v. State, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 899. One of the essential elements of the crimes of possessing or uttering a forged instrument is that the instrument possessed or uttered be false or forged. Cf. Maura v. State, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 231. In the instant case there is no doubt the defendant negotiated the two money orders, but there is no evidence in the record to establish that they were forged. The circumstantial evidence is sufficient to raise the possibility that the two money orders were a part of the loot procured at the burglary of the market; but it does not make this possibility a fact since it is also sufficient to raise the possibility that the money orders had been regularly issued prior to the burglary. We therefore reverse and remand with directions to discharge the appellant.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ssion and guilty knowledge of heroin found in car jointly occupied by defendant and a companion; defendant gave exonerating trial testimony as to his lack of knowledge of heroin in the car; possession of heroin conviction reversed); Forbes v. State, 210 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (state’s evidence deemed insufficient to establish that money orders endorsed and uttered by the defendant were false or forged documents; defendant testified that the money orders were paid to him by the persons whose names appea…
-
K. W. U. v. State, 367 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…is whether the rule that when circumstantial evidence is relied upon to prove guilt, it must be consistent only with guilt and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, see Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1956), and Forbes v. State, 210 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), is applicable when the only element proved by circumstantial evidence is the intent of the defendant to participate in a crime which he did not commit, but for which he is charged as an aider and abettor. We hold that the rule i…
-
Smith v. State, 276 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…ockett v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 253; Williams v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 206 So. 2d 446; Guarino v. State, Fla.App. 1961, 133 So. 2d 596, and must exclude any reasonable hypothesis of defend-/ ant’s innocence, Forbes v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 210 So. 2d 246. Circumstantial evidence must conclusively point to guilt and must be something greater than a suspicion or probability, Davis v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 629; Smith v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 194 So. 2d 310. Here there are other hypotheses consist…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mayo v. State, 71 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1954)
- Bertram Maura v. State, 181 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)