HUBERT OWENS, ALIAS BUDDY OWENS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Hubert Owens was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. On appeal, the state conceded that evidence of the property's value was insufficient to support the grand larceny conviction, but argued Owens lacked standing to raise this issue because he failed to file a motion for a new trial. The court reversed, holding that a motion for a directed verdict adequately preserved the sufficiency-of-evidence question for appeal.
A motion for a directed verdict is a sufficient alternative method of presenting the question of sufficiency of evidence to the trial judge, and thus preserves that issue for appellate review. The critical requirement is that the trial court have the opportunity to assess the sufficiency of the evidence, which can be accomplished through a motion for directed verdict as well as through a motion for a new trial.
“the matter was adequately presented before the trial court and the trial court was given a clear opportunity to rule upon the sufficiency of the evidence. This was accomplished by Owens' motion for a directed verdict made at the conclusion of all of the evidence.”
Establishes that a motion for directed verdict can preserve sufficiency-of-evidence claims for appeal, not just motions for new trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHubert Owens was tried by jury and found guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. At trial, the only evidence…
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 Intent To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
Hubert Owens was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. Tried by jury, he was found guilty and duly adjudicated and sentenced. He appeals, saying that there was a total lack of evidence to show that the value of the property in question was $100.00 or more. The state concedes that the evidence of value was insufficient. However, the state, by way of avoidance, asserts that Owens is without standing to raise this point on appeal inasmuch as no motion for a new trial was made in the trial court. It is true that such motion was not made. However, the matter was ade*242quately presented before the trial court and the trial court was given a clear opportunity to rule upon the sufficiency of the evidence. This was accomplished by Owens’ motion for a directed verdict made at the conclusion of all of the evidence. It was presented as follows:
“MR. HOLMES: The Defense moves for a partially directed verdict, in any event, in this case. I find one element missing in both of the charges involved, and that is an element of the value of the property allegedly taken.
“The only testimony we have going to the value of the property relates to the value of more than a year; its purchase price more than a year prior to the time of the taking, alleged in this case; and therefore I would move that at the very least the Court directs a verdict that this Defendant not be convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony or grand larceny, but only, if [sic] such lesser charges as may be appropriate.
“THE COURT: Do you have anything further, Counselor?
“MR. HOLMES : No, sir.
“THE COURT: Motion denied.”
The state cites in support of its position Gilbert v. State, 1941, 148 Fla. 293, 4 So.2d 330; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1966, 194 So.2d 310; and Jones v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 212 So.2d 804. We also notice the latest expression from the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. Wright, Fla. 1969, 224 So.2d 300. Indeed these cases do stand for the proposition that the sufficiency of evidence may not be challenged on appeal unless presented to the trial judge on motion for a new trial. However, our reading of them does not foreclose or prohibit an alternate method of presenting the matter to the trial judge by motion for a directed verdict. The important criteria, as we understand it, is that the trial court should have the opportunity to assess the sufficiency of the evidence.. In Hogwood v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 817, it was held that a motion for a directed verdict was sufficient to preserve the question in a non jury trial. In Nelson v. State, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 250, it was concluded that by assigning as error the denial by the trial court of a motion for a directed verdict the sufficiency of evidence was raised for an appellate court to review. In Wiggins v. State, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 833, 835, a motion for a directed verdict was made after the state’s case was presented. It was not renewed after defendant put on evidence but, regardless, the court ruled that the subject of the motion could be reviewed on appeal, the subject being the failure to prove an element of a crime.
Owens’ conviction is reversed with instructions to grant him a new trial.
Reversed.
McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mancini v. State, 273 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1973)…, October 20, 1969, this Court’s opinion in State v. Wright, supra, was on the books, having been rendered three months before the date of defendant’s trial. However, defendant contends that he relied on the district court opinion in Owens v. State, 227 So. 2d 241 (Fla.App.4th 1969), a decision which was entered September 30, 1969, but not rendered final by the denial of petition for rehearing until November 7, 1969. The district court in Owens held that where a defendant in a criminal case moved for a direct…1 / 3
-
State v. Owens, 233 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1970)…BOYD, Justice. This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District. Jttrisdict'ion is based on the conflict between the decision of the District Court of Appeal herein, reported at 227 So. 2d 241, and the decision of this Court in State v. Wright, 224 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1969). Respondent Owens was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. He was tried by a jury, found guilty and sentenced to 15 years…1 / 2
-
Williams v. State, 516 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…e sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the only exception being capital cases. Mancini at 372. On the day that Mancini was tried, the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Wright was on the books. Defendant however, relied on Owens v. State, 227 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) wherein the Fourth District held that where a defendant in a criminal case moved for a directed verdict on the ground that proof of value of the property taken was not presented, failure to move after the verdict for a new trial…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Wright, 224 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1969)
- Gilbert v. State, 4 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1941)
- Smith v. State, 194 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Wiggins v. State, 101 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Bozzie Nelson v. State, 97 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1957)
- Jones v. State, 212 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Hogwood v. State, 175 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)