STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
JOSEPH E. DEFILIPPO, D/B/A WOODLAWN MEMORIALS, RESPONDENT
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 State of Florida sought certiorari review after a circuit court reversed DeFillippo's conviction for issuing a worthless check. The appellate court determined the circuit court improperly reweighed circumstantial evidence and substituted its judgment for the trial court's, holding that the circumstantial evidence sufficiently proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The circuit court's reversal constituted a departure from essential requirements of law reviewable by certiorari. Circumstantial evidence that is consistent with guilt and inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence sufficiently establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
[1] An appellate court's reweighing of evidence or substitution of its judgment for that of the trier of fact constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law r…
[2] An appellate court's misconception of the legal effect of evidence, leading to the application of a wrong rule of law, constitutes a departure from the essential requirem…
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“Where a court sitting in its appellate capacity attempts to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact or where such court misconceives the legal effect of the evidence so as to result in a wrong rule of law being applied, such action constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law reviewable by certiorari.”
Establishes the standard for when appellate reweighing of evidence constitutes reversible error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDeFillippo was convicted of issuing a worthless check following a nonjury trial in county court. The evidence presented was largely circumstantial. Th…
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 Departure From Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The respondent was convicted of issuing a worthless check after a nonjury trial in the county court. On appeal the circuit court reversed the conviction finding that the petitioner did not meet its burden of proving the identity of the defendant beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari in this court contending that the circuit court’s decision constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law. We agree.
Where a court sitting in its appellate capacity attempts to reweigh the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact or where such court misconceives the legal effect of the evidence so as to result in a wrong rule of law being applied, such action constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law reviewable by certiorari. State Beverage Department v. Ernal, Inc., Fla.App. 1959, 115 So. 2d 566; City of Miami v. Bell, Fla.App.1973, 281 So. 2d 540. Although the evidence in the instant case was largely circumstantial, a review of the record reflects that such evidence was consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Duran v. State, Fla.App.1974, 301 So. 2d 486; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 446; Amato v. State, Fla.App.1974, 296 So. 2d 609. The circumstantial evidence created more than a mere suspicion that the accused committed the crime with which he was charged and excluded every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt. Cf. Woitte v. United States, 9 Cir. 1927, 19 F. 2d 506.
Accordingly, certiorari is granted; the order of the circuit court is quashed and the judgment of conviction and sentence of the county court is reinstated.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur. WALDEN, C. J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Amato v. State, 296 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Williams v. State, 206 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- State Bev. Dep't of Fla. v. Ernal, Inc., 115 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Graham v. Honorable Ray Pearson, 115 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Duran v. State, 301 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Woitte v. United States, 19 F.2d 506 (9th Cir. 1927)
- City OF Miami v. Bell, 281 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)