Kaufman v. State

Grace Mary KAUFMAN a/K/a Grace Difabio a/K/a Sandy Jenkins a/K/a Sandra Jenkins a/K/a Grace Mary Sieroslawski a/K/a Mary Grace Welch, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 19, 1983.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1983-04-19

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1993

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a defendant in a criminal case against conviction `except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.' ... ... . ... [T]he critical inquiry on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction must be not simply to determine whether the jury was properly instructed, but to determine whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But this inquiry does not require a court to `ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.' ... Instead, the relevant question is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. ... The criterion thus impinges upon `jury' discretion only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 616 So. 2d 1017 - Coley v. State

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · 214 So. 2d 653 - Douglas v. State · Jefferson v. Smith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-04-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Albert J. Zemlock, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

¶3Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and BASKIN, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The test to be applied in appellate review of denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Viewing the record evidence most favorably to the conclusion reached by the trier of fact, Douglas v. State,214 So.2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), and resolving all conflicts in favor of the appellee, see H.D. v. State,348 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), we find no error.

¶6The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.