STEVEN WAYNE THOMAS, 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.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for second-degree murder or aiding and abetting, even if the evidence was primarily circumstantial.
[1] Circumstantial evidence, when relied upon for conviction, must lead to a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused, and no one else, committed the offense.
[2] A conviction for murder may be sustained on appeal if there is sufficient competent evidence to support a conviction as an aider and abettor, even if no instruction on ai…
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 intelligenceAppellant was indicted for the premeditated murder of his infant daughter. The evidence was circumstantial but showed the child was murdered and that …
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 Circumstantial Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Thomas, was indicted for the premeditated murder of his one-month old daughter. A jury verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree resulted in the imposition of a sentence of six months to twenty years. The case against Thomas was essentially circumstantial, as is often true in cases of this nature.
The evidence demonstrates that the child was murdered. The evidence was sufficient to show that appellant had mistreated the baby in the past and had threatened to kill her. Yet, the evidence that appellant committed the act was circumstantial.
When circumstantial evidence is relied upon for conviction, the circumstances when taken together must lead to a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused, and no one else, committed the offense. LaMonte v. State, Fla.App.2nd, 1962, 145 So. 2d 889.
We doubt that it can be said that the evidence was such as to lead one to a moral certainty that appellant, and no one else, committed the crime because there is a reasonable alternative hypothesis that the child was killed by her mother. However, the evidence reflects that appellant and the mother were together with the baby at a time when the jury had a right to believe the killing was accomplished. Considering the totality of the evidence, we, at the very least, believe it was sufficient to convict appellant as an aider and abetter. See Newman v. State, Fla. 1967, 196 So. 2d 897. The fact that no instruction on aiding and abetting was requested or given would not prevent such a conviction. State v. Roby, Fla. 1971, 246 So. 2d 566. The only reasonable alternative hypothesis to guilt on the murder charge is guilt as an aider and abetter. We have reviewed the record on appeal and heard oral argument by counsel. We conclude that there was sufficient, competent evidence in the instant case to support the conviction of either second-degree murder or aiding and abetting. We have reviewed the many other questions raised by the appellant and find them' to be without merit.
Affirmed.
McNULTY, a. C. J., and BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Roby, 246 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1971)
- Newman v. State, 196 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1967)
- Vira P. Stansbury v. Stansbury, 145 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)