Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

303 So. 2d 428

Docket No. 73-818.

Hall v. State

Joseph E. HALL, Sometimes Known As Joseph E. Bostick, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 22, 1974.

Rehearing Denied December 13, 1974.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1974-11-22

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1980

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“When circumstantial evidence is relied upon for conviction in a criminal case, the circumstances, when taken together, must be of a conclusive nature and tendency, leading on the whole to a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused, and no one else, committed the offense. If the facts in proof are equally consistent with some other rational conclusion than that of guilt, the evidence is insufficient. If the evidence leaves it indifferent as to which of several hypotheses is true, or merely establishes some finite probability in favor of one hypothesis rather than another, such evidence cannot amount to proof, however great the probability may be. It is the actual exclusion of each other reasonable hypothesis which clothes mere circumstances with the force of proof. Circumstantial evidence which leaves nothing more than a suspicion that the accused committed a crime is not sufficient to sustain a conviction.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 320 So. 2d 459 - Interest of BS v. State

Relies on 104 So. 2d 391 - Harrison v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1974-11-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James A. Gardner, Public Defender, Sarasota, and Braxton R. Ezell, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant was charged in a one count information with grand larceny. The jury found him guilty and the trial judge sentenced him to a term of six months to one year. This timely appeal followed.

¶5A review of the record and briefs, oral argument having been waived, shows that the conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence. The First District Court of Appeal in the case of Harrison v. State, Fla.App.1st, 1958, 104 So.2d 391, in speaking about the standard of proof necessary to sustain a conviction in a circumstantial evidence case has held, "... [c]ircumstantial evidence which leaves nothing more than a suspicion that the accused committed a crime is not sufficient to sustain a conviction." The record discloses only the possibility of the appellant's guilt, but the proofs are not of sufficient certainty to meet the standards prescribed.

¶6Accordingly, the judgment appealed is

¶7Reversed and remanded for new trial.

¶8HOBSON, Acting C.J., and BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.

/303/so2d/428 · .json · Public domain