ERNEST EUGENE TILLMAN, 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 held that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant's knowledge of the crime's perpetration, supporting the jury's verdict.
The defendant drove participants to the crime scene, waited with the car running, and received a portion of the proceeds after the armed robbery. Ther…
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 Motion For Judgment Of Acquittal cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
A jury convicted Tillman of armed robbery. He appeals contending the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. The motion was based on the State’s failure to prove knowledge on his part.
There was no evidence that Tillman personally committed the crime. The State had to prove Tillman’s knowledge of the actual perpetration of the crime. Hornbeck v. State, 77 So. 2d 876 (Fla.1955). This the State did by circumstantial evidence.
There was evidence that Tillman drove the actual participants in the crime to secure a shotgun and shells. He was present when they discussed what they were going to do. He drove them to the trailer park where the victim lived, dropped them off and then drove out to the main road several hundred yards away where he parked the car with the motor running. After commission of the crime, the actual participants returned to the car and Tillman was given a portion of the robbery proceeds. This evidence was sufficient for a jury to infer knowledge.
As stated in Amato v. State, 296 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974):
“. . . the test to be applied on review of a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is not whether, in the opinion of the trial court or the appellate court, the evidence fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt but, rather, whether the jury might reasonably so conclude. Vick v. United States, 216 F. 2d 228 (5th Cir. 1954). The jury is the pivotal point at which evidence is aimed, not the courts.”
The judgment of guilt is affirmed.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Nadean O. McARTHUR v. Nourse, 369 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1979)…1964); Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1956); Head v. State, 62 So. 2d 41 (Fla.1952); Lyons v. State, 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 12…1 / 2
-
Boston v. State, 411 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…nstructions In Misdemeanor Cases, Nos. 56, 734 and 58, 799 (Fla., April 16, 1981), 6 FLW 305.1 We find no error in the court’s denial of appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. See, State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823 (Fla.1976); Tillman v. State, 353 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (Fla.1981); Frank v. State, 199 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). AFFIRMED. MILLS and SHAW, JJ., concur. . We have considered and rejected appellant’s ex post facto argument, based on the princip…
-
In the Interest of T.S.J. v. State, 439 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…judgment of acquittal is not whether, in the opinion of the trial court or the appellate court, the evidence fails to exclude every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt, but rather whether the jury might reasonably so conclude. Tillman v. State, 353 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The circumstantial evidence presented at this trial is sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal and is sufficient to support the conviction. The evidence is also inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of i…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Vick v. United States, 216 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1954)
- Amato v. State, 296 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Hornbeck v. State, 77 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1955)