GEORGE ALFRED SANDERS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; BOBBY EUGENE JEFFERSON, 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.
The court reversed two consolidated robbery convictions where the state failed to prove the essential element of larceny (taking of property). Although the victim's wallet was missing after appellants helped him to his feet, the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
The court held that the State failed to prove the element of 'taking' or larceny necessary for robbery conviction as a matter of law. The circumstantial evidence was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except defendants' guilt, as required by law.
[1] A conviction for robbery requires proof of a larceny, which includes the element of a "taking."
[2] Circumstantial evidence of guilt must be so strong and convincing as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the defendant's guilt and exclude any reasonable hypoth…
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“the element of 'taking', or larceny, has not been proved by the State”
The court's primary holding that the essential element of robbery was not established 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 intelligenceTwo appellants and the victim were inside a bar early in the morning. When the victim left with $40 in his back pocket wallet, the appellants chased h…
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 Circumstantial Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
WEAVER, SIDNEY M., Associate Judge.
Appellants filed this timely consolidated appeal from convictions of robbery and subsequent sentences. Two points of error are urged for our consideration: (1) the State failed to prove commission of a larceny in its prosecution for robbery and (2) the exclusion by the trial court of a statement made by one defendant to the other immediately prior to the alleged robbery.
We find merit to the appellants’ first point and reverse, thus rendering the second point unnecessary for our determination.
The victim left a bar in the early morning hours with forty dollars in his wallet, located in a back pocket of his pants. Appellants, also inside the bar, chased him and when he stumbled and fell, helped him to his feet. After this incident the victim discovered his wallet and money to be missing. Witnesses testified to various versions of the incident. One witness indicated he “thought” the appellants went into the victim’s pocket and threw something into a nearby canal which contained approximately five inches of water. Another witness stated that he saw the appellants pick the victim’s pocket but later admitted he noticed only a downward motion of the hand. Still another witness stated the appellants made their motion toward the victim’s front pocket. The victim testified he kept his wallet in his back pocket and that he did not remember anyone reaching into his pocket although he later amended his statement to indicate that the appellants searched his pockets. The appellants remained at the scene and a search, by the police, of the appellants and the canal failed to reveal the “missing” wallet and money.
After a careful review of the record and the arguments of counsel, we reach the conclusion that the element of “taking”, or larceny, has not been proved by the State. By inference it may be said that the victim’s wallet was present before the incident and missing after the incident and therefore taken by the appellants. But this is not sufficient as circumstantial evidence must be so strong and convincing as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the defendants’ guilt and must exclude any reasonable hypothesis of the defendants’ innocence. Smith v. State, 276 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). The evidence in the instant case falls short of the mark as a matter of law.
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH and LETTS, JJ:, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nadean O. McARTHUR v. Nourse, 369 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1979)…47 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1950); Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53, 163 So. 223 (1935); Bellamy v. State, 96 Fla. 808, 119 So. 137 (1928); Tillman v. State, 353 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Donald v. State, 344 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Sanders v. State, 344 So. 2d 876 (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, 3…
-
Jones v. State, 466 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…r manslaughter conviction reversed); Solomon v. State, 115 Fla. 310, 156 So. 401 (1934) (state’s evidence deemed insufficient to establish that defendant was maintaining and operating a gambling room; gambling conviction reversed); Sanders v. State, 344 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (state’s evidence deemed insufficient to establish that defendant pickpocketed the victim; robbery conviction reversed); Atkins v. State, 301 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (state’s evidence deemed insufficient to exclude hypothe…
-
White v. State, 973 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…udgment of acquittal should be granted if the state fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.” Brothers v. State, 853 So. 2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). See also Sanders v. State, 344 So. 2d 876, 876-77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (“circumstantial evidence must be so strong and convincing as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except the defendants’ guilt and must exclude any reasonable hypothesis of the defendants’ innocence”). However, the evi…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 276 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)