WALTER GORDON RICHARDSON, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Richardson was convicted of attempted breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that while the trial court properly submitted the case to the jury on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecutor made improper remarks during closing argument that unfairly prejudiced the defendant in this close case.
The trial court correctly submitted the case to the jury because there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably exclude every hypothesis but that of guilt. However, the prosecutor's improper remarks suggesting he could have brought in more police officers constituted reversible error in this close case where the defendant's credibility was critical to the verdict.
[1] When reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the jury must be able to reasonably conclude that the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but that…
[2] A trial court does not err in denying a motion for acquittal if there is sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably exclude every hypothesis but that of guilt…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In reference 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.”
Establishes the legal standard for sufficiency of circumstantial evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichardson was charged with attempted breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny. The evidence was in part circumstantial, and the case…
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 Reasonable Hypothesis Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Judge.
Appellant, the defendant below, appeals his conviction of attempted breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny.
He first asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motions for acquittal. The evidence was in part circumstantial and a close question was presented. In reference 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 jury could reasonably exclude every hypothesis but that of guilt.
Defendant’s second point is based upon certain remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument. The following took place before the jury.
'‘MR. PICCHI: [Prosecutor]: Ladies and gentlemen, I have done my job. My job is to present the facts. I could have brought in a lot of police officers.
MR. TAYLOR: [Defense Counsel]: I will object. He could have brought in anybody, but he did not do it.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. PICCHI: I am trying to say, we are finishing this case now. It could have lasted longer. MR. TAYLOR: Your Honor, I will object. Come on, please.
MR. PICCHI: The facts of the case have been presented to you as succinctly and as plainly as possible. I ask you to use your common sense. I have done my job. I presented it to you. It is your turn. This is your community. This is your courtroom. These are your laws.”
The state concedes that the prosecutor’s remarks were improper, but asserts that they were of a general nature not likely to prejudice the accused and therefore harmless error. In a close case we must give particularly careful attention to any improper and prejudicial remarks. The jury verdict in this case hinged upon the defendant’s credibility. We cannot say that the prosecutor’s allegation that he “. . . could have brought in a lot of police officers”, might not have had the effect of unfairly tipping the scales against the defendant. Thompson v. State, 318 So. 2d 549 (Fla.App. 4th, 1975).
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
WALDEN, C. J., and BERANEK, JOHN R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Nadean O. McARTHUR v. Nourse, 369 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1979)…6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Interest of B. S. v. State, 320 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). . In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 196 So. 2d 124, 164-65, 167 (Fla.1967). . Tillman v. State, 353 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Richardson v. State, 335 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Amato v. State, 296 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). . 437 U.S. at 11, 98 S.Ct. at 2147. We specifically decline to rule upon the double jeopardy implications of appellate reversals based upon considerations of evidentiary weight…
-
Williamson v. State, 459 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…o the jury that he had additional evidence of appellant’s guilt which he simply saw no need to present to them. This representation was highly improper and prejudicial, especially in the context of this case. Id. at 552. Accord Richardson v. State, 335 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (prosecutor’s comment that: “I could have brought in a lot of police officers” implies existence of additional, harmful evidence and constituted reversible error); cf. Libertucci v. State, 395 So. 2d 1223, 1225 n. 5 (Fla. 3d DCA…
-
Adams v. State, 585 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…85); Williamson v. State, 459 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Williams v. State, 548 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Libertucci v. State, 395 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Mulford v. State, 416 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Richardson v. State, 335 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The prosecutor's comments during closing were not only outside the evidence, but also inflammatory. Appellant timely objected to the prosecutor’s comments. However, the trial court overruled the objection. In Edwards v. State,…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Amato v. State, 296 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Thompson v. State, 318 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Duran v. State, 301 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Piantadosi v. State, 311 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)