BERNARD KOENIG, 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.
Bernard Koenig was convicted after a bench trial of willfully damaging telephone equipment and possessing burglarious tools. The appellate court affirmed, holding that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove he damaged the telephone booth based on his proximity to the booth and the minimal time elapsed between the officer's observation and apprehension.
Circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions. The proximity of the appellant to the telephone booth and the extremely short time elapsed between when the officer passed the booth and apprehended him preclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence and satisfy the requirements for circumstantial evidence convictions.
“the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a finding that the appellant was inside the telephone booth when the telephone was damaged, and therefore the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions”
The court's holding that circumstantial evidence, without eyewitness testimony, can support conviction when it excludes reasonable alternative hypotheses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer patrolling in an unmarked car observed a person in a telephone booth equipped with a silent alarm. After traveling five blocks, the o…
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 Circumstantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was found guilty upon a two-count information after a non-jury trial. Count one charged the appellant with willfully destroying or damaging telephone equipment in violation of § 822.10, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Count two charged him with possession of burglarious tools in violation of § 810.06, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The appellant urges that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the convictions.
While patrolling in an unmarked automobile during the early morning hours, a police officer of the City of Hialeah observed a person in a telephone booth. The telephone in the booth was protected by a silent alarm which rang in the police station if the telephone were tampered with. After the officer travelled about five blocks beyond the booth, he was informed by radio that someone was tampering with the telephone in the booth he had just passed. The officer immediately made a u-turn, retrav-elled the five blocks, and apprehended the appellant seven or eight yards from the booth. The telephone was in a damaged condition. The change box had been pried loose, and a part of the telephone was on the floor of the booth. A pry bar, screw driver, and tire iron were also on the floor of the booth.
Appellant contends that because the state was unable to present eye witness testimony that he was the person inside the booth, the circumstantial evidence presented is not sufficient to sustain the convictions under the rules stated in Mayo v. State, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 899, 904, and Dedge v. State, 128 Fla. 343, 174 So. 725 (1937). We hold that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to sustain a finding that the appellant was inside the telephone booth when the telephone was damaged, and *628therefore the evidence is sufficient to sustain the convictions. The facts that (1) an extremely short period of time elapsed between the time the arresting officer passed the booth and the time he returned and arrested the appellant, and (2) the appellant was arrested at a point quite near the telephone booth distinguish this case from Dedge, above, and preclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See Chason v. State, 148 Fla. 540, 4 So.2d 691 (1941). Therefore, the requirement of Mayo, above, has been satisfied. In the instant case where the appellant was apprehended seven or eight yards from a telephone booth containing a damaged telephone and a very short time after the telephone was damaged, we think the only reasonable hypothesis is that he was the person inside the booth when the officer passed the booth and that he was the person who damaged the telephone.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Betancourt v. State, 228 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…rrado and Montalvo is sufficient because circumstantial evidence may prove guilt when the circumstances are susceptible of only one reasonable interpreta- [*127] tion. See McBride v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 70; Koenig v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 627; Ponce v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 60. The judgments appealed from are affirmed.…
-
Delgado v. State, 229 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…cipating in the sale of cocaine. Even if the evidence is considered as circumstantial it is susceptible to no reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the appellants. See McBride v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 70; Koenig v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 627; Ponce v. State, Fla.App.1969, 219 So. 2d 60; Betancourt v. State, above. Affirmed.…
-
In the Interest of P. G. and G. G., 280 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…dealing with this particular harmful chemical substance which is generally known to be sometimes used by juveniles for the purpose of intoxication, a chemical analysis was not essential to the proof of the charge. Cf. Koenig v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 627. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Chason v. State, 148 Fla. 540 (Fla. 1941)
- Gus R. Dedge v. State, 128 Fla. 343 (Fla. 1937)