HUBBARD
v.
STATE
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny, finding the circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court agreed with the Attorney General's confession of error.
No, the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The most that it shows is that the appellant was apprehended by certain police officers about a block from his home and accused of breaking and entering a residence some thirty minutes prior to the arrest.”
describes the limited facts presented by the prosecution.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted based on circumstantial evidence. He was apprehended about a block from his home, approximately thirty minutes after a res…
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
SEBRING, Justice.
The appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. The evidence upon which the judgment and sentence are based was entirely circumstantial. The most that it shows is that the appellant was apprehended by certain police officers about a block from his home and accused of breaking and entering a residence some thirty minutes prior to the arrest. No article that was in the residence prior to the burglary was found upon the appellant. No witness was able to identify him as the burglar. There is nothing in the evidence except suspicious circumstances to connect the appellant with the crime.
In recognition of the paucity of the proof, the Attorney General, at the bar of this Court, has confessed error, and has asked that the judgment and sentence appealed from be reversed and the cause sent back for a new trial.
We agree with the Attorney General that the evidence was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment and sentence should be reversed and a new trial awarded.
It is so ordered.
TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, HOB-SON, J., and PATTERSON, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knight v. State, 294 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…ses is true, or merely establishes some finite probability in favor of one hypotheses is rather than another, such evidence cannot be proof, however great the probability may be.” 5 Fla.Jur. Burglary and Housebreaking § 24 (1955). Hubbard v. State, 73 So. 2d 850 (Fla.1954); Rivers v. State, 140 Fla. 487, 192 So. 190 (1939); Wright v. State, 182 So. 2d 273 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1966). With respect to finger print evidence in particular, it has been held that when a finger print is found in a [*389] place open to the…
-
Wright v. State, 182 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…ant, in that it did not meet the tests set forth in Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 So. 246; Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53, 163 So. 223; Dedge v. State, 128 Fla. 343, 174 So. 725; Rivers v. State, 140 Fla. 487, 192 So. 190; Hubbard v. State, Fla.1954, 73 So. 2d 850; Davis v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 629. The evidence failed to establish beyond and to the exclusion of reasonable doubt that the appellant, and no one else, was criminally responsible for the act charged. Therefore the judgment, conviction, and…