CLAUDE PELHAM
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 conviction for breaking and entering a warehouse, finding the evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that while the evidence created suspicion, it did not establish guilt with the required certainty.
No, the evidence was not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the evidence only created a strong suspicion, which is insufficient for a criminal conviction.
“It is at most only sufficient to create a strong suspicion of the defendant's guilt and does not meet the degree of certainty required for conviction.”
This quote explains why the court found the evidence insufficient for a conviction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State's case against the defendant for breaking and entering a warehouse with intent to commit petit larceny relied on circumstantial evidence. Th…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence For Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case we review judgment of conviction of the offense of breaking and entering a warehouse, the property of another, with intent to commit petit larceny.
The evidence shows that the warehouse was broken and entered and a lot of cottonseed taken therefrom; a truck was traced from the scene to where it was found in the back of a field belonging to defendant’s father and near where defendant lived. The truck belonged to defendant. Defendant was seen in the field where the truck was found on the same day on which the truck was found, but earlier in the day. This is the State’s case.
It is at most only sufficient to create a strong suspicion of the defendant’s guilt and does not meet the degree of certainty required for conviction. So, the judgment should be, and is, reversed.
So ordered.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.