SERGIO HERNANDEZ, APPELLANT, 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.
Sergio Hernandez appealed his conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree, arguing the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence, when viewed under the proper legal standard for circumstantial evidence cases, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The inferences reasonably drawn from the circumstantial evidence were not only consistent with guilt but inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and the jury could reasonably so conclude.
[1] In circumstantial evidence cases, inferences drawn from the evidence must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence to susta…
[2] The test for sufficiency of circumstantial evidence on a motion for judgment of acquittal is whether the jury must reasonably conclude guilt, not whether the judge or app…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“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”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating circumstantial evidence in criminal convictions
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHernandez was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and assault with intent to commit murder. At trial, the jury found him…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was charged by information with the crimes of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and assault with intent to commit murder. Upon trial before a jury, he was found guilty of breaking without entering with intent to commit a felony and assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree, and was so adjudged and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 5 years on the first count and IS years on the second count, to run concurrently, in the state penitentiary.
On appeal therefrom, it is contended by the appellant that the evidence upon which the conviction was based, which for the most part, was circumstantial, was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, and that his motion for acquittal should have been granted.
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 every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt, but rather whether the jury must reasonably so conclude. Amato v. State, Fla.App.1974, 296 So. 2d 609; Vick v. United States, 5th 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.
Affirmed.
GREEN, ROBERT A., Jr., Associate Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I feel the statement of the law in the majority opinion is incorrect.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Irven George Pressley v. State, 395 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…f acquittal 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 must reasonably so conclude.” Hernandez v. State, 305 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied 315 So. 2d 192 (Fla.1975). By the motion, a defendant admits all facts introduced into evidence and the court must draw every inference favorable to the prosecution. Codie v. State, 313 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1975); Rodrig…
-
Gosciminski v. State, 132 So. 3d 678 (Fla. 2013)…uch a motion 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 must reasonably so conclude.” Hernandez v. State, 305 So. 2d 211, 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); see also Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301, 302 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), approved, 485 So. 2d 1283 (Fla.1986). We explained how the circumstantial evidence standard applies to a motion for a judgment of acquittal in State v. L…
-
Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…d); Piantadosi v. State, 311 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (state’s evidence deemed sufficient to link defendant to burglary/larceny and to negate defendant’s exonerating trial testimony; burglary and larceny 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…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 12 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)