BESSIE MAE MCGUIRE, 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.
Bessie Mae McGuire was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny when she drove her fourteen-year-old son to a Lutheran Church to pick up a lawnmower he claimed to have purchased. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, finding that the circumstantial evidence of her guilty intent was insufficient because it did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
The conviction was reversed because the circumstantial evidence failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Although the evidence may raise suspicion of guilt, it is insufficient to prove intent to commit the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The son's unequivocal testimony that his mother did not know he was stealing, combined with the open and non-surreptitious nature of the pickup, creates a reasonable hypothesis that the appellant believed the transaction was legitimate.
[1] A defendant's failure to properly preserve an issue for appellate review, or inducing the alleged error, may preclude appellate consideration of that issue.
[2] Circumstantial evidence of guilt must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of the accused's guilt.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the son as a state's witness unequivocally testified that his mother did not know he was stealing the mower”
Key evidence supporting the finding of reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's knowledge and guilty intent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcGuire's son asked her to drive him to a Lutheran Church to retrieve a lawnmower he said he had bought. He told her he had been instructed to break t…
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
DOWNEY, Judge.
This is an appeal from convictions of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. The error complained of below has to do with the court’s failure to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, and to direct a verdict due to insufficiency of the evidence. The first point was not properly preserved for appellate review, and the court’s defalcation, if such it be, was induced by counsel for the defendant.
The main thrust of appellant’s second point is that the evidence of guilt was circumstantial and it was consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We agree.
The evidence presented to the jury showed that appellant’s fourteen year old son asked her to drive him over to the Lutheran Church to pick up a lawnmower which he had bought. The boy had worked at the church property on previous occasions. He told his mother he had been instructed to break the lock on the shed because the key had been lost. Appellant drove her son to the church property in her station wagon about 11:00 a. m., he broke the lock, pushed the lawnmower into the car and they departed.
The state called the son as a state’s witness and he testified that his mother had asked him if he “was sure he was supposed to do this”. When he broke the lock, the son testified she said: “You know it’s wrong”. But the son as a state’s witness unequivocally testified that his mother did not know he was stealing the mower. Appellant’s daughter also testified that the son told her either that he had bought the mower or it was given to him, she wasn’t sure which it was.
Finally, the evidence showed that appellant and son went to the church property at 11:00 a. m.; there were people at and around the church, not far from the shed in question. There was nothing surreptitious about the circumstan<'- of picking up the mower. Thus, it is apparent that the proof of intent to commit the crimes in question is circumstantial. In such a case the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt of the accused. Williams v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 446; Lockett v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 253. It is our view that although the evidence may raise a suspicion of appellant’s guilt, it certainly cannot be said to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.
Reversed.
OWEN, C. J., and JOHNSON, CLARENCE T., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ed, 296 So. 2d 51 (Fla.1974) (state’s evidence insufficient to establish that defendant had guilty knowledge that his wife had just received a package of cocaine in the mail; conviction for unlawful possession of cocaine reversed); McGuire v. State, 288 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (state's evidence deemed insufficient to establish that she knew her son was stealing a lawnmower when she drove him to a church and he took the lawnmower in question from a shed; burglary and larceny convictions reversed); Weins…
-
Harris v. State, 307 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…appellant.3 Reversed and remanded, with directions. . Accord, Langdon v. State, Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 321; Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1974, 297 So. 2d 850. . Accord, Lockett v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 253; McGuire v. State, Fla.App.1974, 288 So. 2d 271. . We are shortening the time for rehearing in this cause, and require that a petition for rehearing, if any, be filed within five (5) days of this opinion because of the short sentence which the appellant is now serving.…
-
Land & Leisure, Inc. v. Fla. Power Corp., 295 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1974)…Certiorari denied. 288 So. 2d 271. ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and McCAIN, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., dissents.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnnell Lockett v. State, 262 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Williams v. State, 206 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)