NORMAN RUDISEL, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for grand larceny and breaking and entering, finding that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the trial court's verdict.
No, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a directed verdict.
“On examination of the record and briefs we conclude that the contention presented by the appellant is without merit, and that the judgment has the support of substantial competent evidence, giving due consideration to the quantum of proof required by law in such case.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction.
The appellant was charged with grand larceny and breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny. He pleaded not guilty, wa…
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 Reasonable Hypothesis Of Innocence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was charged by information with the crimes of grand larceny and breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny. He pleaded not guilty, waived a jury, was tried, found guilty and sentenced to three years’ confinement in the state penitentiary, with credit given for certain time spent in jail prior to sentencing. On this appeal therefrom by the defendant, he seeks reversal on the grounds that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict at the close of the state’s case, for insufficiency of the evidence. Appellant argues that the evidence was circumstantial and was not such as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. On examination of the record and briefs we conclude that the contention presented by the appellant is without merit, and that the judgment has the support of substantial competent evidence, giving due consideration to the quantum of proof required by law in such case.
Affirmed.