JOE BORDERS, 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.
A conviction for conspiracy can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, and the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction.
The defendant was convicted by a non-jury trial for conspiracy to commit bookmaking. The appeal argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove an …
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 Bookmaking cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal considers defendant’s conviction by non-jury trial for conspiracy to commit the misdemeanor of bookmaking and his sentence therefor to 45 days in the Dade County Jail.
The thrust of the appeal is that the court erred in entering a judgment of guilty as the evidence was insufficient to show that the defendant had agreed with others to commit an illegal act. Borders, the defendant, contends that the law requires proof of such agreement, not just circumstantial evidence.
The State contends that there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy as alleged, that it was not necessary to prove a specific conversation in which an agreement was made but that circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy is sufficient for conviction. We agree.
A person charged with a crime may be convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Navarro v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 729, 731. See also Williams v. State, 1917, 73 Fla. 1198, 75 So. 785, 788, and Chason v. State, 1941, 148 Fla. 540, 4 So. 2d 691. Proof of a formal agreement is not necessary to establish the existence of a conspiracy. United States v. Amato, 5th Cir. 1974, 495 F. 2d 545. Indeed it is well recognized that the existence of a conspiracy or confederation can and will be inferred from circumstantial evidence as indicative of an overall plan. Bass v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So. 2d 614, 617; United States v. Nadaline, 5th Cir. 1973, 471 F. 2d 340. See also United States v. Edwards, 5th Cir. 1974, 488 F. 2d 1154.
Our review of the record indicates that sufficient evidence was presented to the court to support the judgment of conviction for conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: bookmaking, and, therefore, this conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court hereby are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
LaPOLLA v. State, 504 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…a formal agreement among the alleged conspirators if a conspiratorial agreement can be inferred from circumstantial evidence indicative of an overall plan. Beke, 423 So. 2d at 419 (citing Resnick v. State, 287 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1973); Borders v. State, 312 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)). This court has spoken similarly in, among other cases, Manner v. State, 387 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and more recently Harris v. State, 450 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). In State v. Cristodero, 426 So. 2d 977, 980 (Fla…
-
McCAIN v. State, 390 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…not necessary to establish the existence of a conspiracy.... Indeed it is well recognized that the existence of a conspiracy or confederation can and will be inferred from circumstantial evidence as indicative of an overall plan. Borders v. State, 312 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied 327 So. 2d 31 (Fla.1976) (citations omitted). In the present case, the record reveals not only circumstantial evidence indicating a common purpose to commit the crime, but also a specific agreement between the defen…
-
Castillo v. State, 590 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ndant was possibly to serve as the driver. While it is true that the conspiratorial agreement and intention to commit the unlawful act can be shown by circumstantial evidence, State v. Lamb, 348 So. 2d 403, 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Borders v. State, 312 So. 2d 247, 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 327 So. 2d 31 (Fla.1976), it is also settled that mere presence at the crime scene, without more, is insufficient to establish the existence of a criminal conspiracy. Honchell v. State, 257 So. 2d 889, 891 (Fla…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. McArthur Edwards, 488 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1974)
- United States v. Amato, 495 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Chason v. State, 148 Fla. 540 (Fla. 1941)
- Bass v. State, 172 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- United States v. Nadaline, 471 F.2d 340 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Cassie Williams v. State, 73 Fla. 1198 (Fla. 1917)
- Navarro v. State, 262 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)