MANUEL DURAN, 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 court held that the jury might reasonably conclude guilt based on the evidence presented, even if circumstantial.
Appellant was convicted of grand larceny based on circumstantial evidence. He appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictio…
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
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was charged by information with the crime of grand larceny. Upon trial before a jury, he was found guilty and was so adjudged and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years. On appeal therefrom it is contended by the appellant that the trial court erred by denying his motions at the close of the presentation of evidence by the State and at the close of the case, on the ground that the evidence upon which the conviction was based, which for the most part was circumstantial, was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
The appellate courts of this State have held repeatedly that to sustain conviction in circumstantial evidence cases the inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence must not only be consistent with guilt of the accused but inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. However, in such cases the test to be applied on motion for judgment of acquittal and on review of the denial of such a motion is not simply whether in the opinion of the trial judge or of the appellate court the evidence fails to exclude ev ery reasonable hypothesis but that' of guilt, but rather whether the jury might reasonably so conclude. Amato v. State, Fla.App. 1974, 296 So. 2d 609; Vick v. United States, Sth Cir. 1954, 216 F. 2d 228; United States v. Gaviria, 5th Cir. 1973, 471 F. 2d 1181, 1183.
Having reviewed the evidence in the light of the above pronounced principles of law applicable thereto, we hold to be without merit the appellant’s contention of the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. No useful purpose would be served by including a detailed recitation of the evidence here.
No reversible error having been shown, the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ny convictions upheld); Hernandez v. State, 305 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert, denied, 315 So. 2d 192 (Fla.1975) (state’s evidence deemed sufficient to sustain convictions for burglary and assault with intent to commit murder); Duran v. State, 301 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (state's evidence deemed sufficient to sustain a grand larceny conviction); State v. Perry, 297 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (state’s evidence deemed sufficient to establish that the defendant was in possession of packets contain…
-
Green v. State, 408 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…w of that denial is not simply whether in the opinion of the trial judge or of the appellate court the evidence fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt, but rather whether the jury might reasonably so conclude. Duran v. State, 301 So. 2d 486 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). The jury, sub judice, concluded that appellant was the murderer. The evidence presented to the jury was sufficient as a matter of law. Appellant asserts as his last point on appeal that the trial court erred when it failed to str…
-
Richardson v. State, 335 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…ence to circumstantial evidence, the test to be applied is whether the jury might reasonably conclude that the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt. Piantadosi v. State, 311 So. 2d 742 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1975); Duran v. State, 301 So. 2d 486 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1974); Amato v. State, 296 So. 2d 609 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1974). Applying this principle to the testimony in this case, we find that the trial judge correctly submitted the case to the jury. There was sufficient evidence from which the ju…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Vick v. United States, 216 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1954)
- Amato v. State, 296 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- United States v. Gaviria, 471 F.2d 1181 (5th Cir. 1973)