Boswer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Boswer v. State

265 So. 2d 55

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 1, 1972

DocketNo. 71-1380

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 So. 2d 55 (Boswer v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boswer v. State, 265 So. 2d 55 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Arthur L. Boswer, was charged with grand larceny of four lengths of pipe. He was tried non-jury and found guilty as charged. The court imposed a sentence of eighteen months in the state penitentiary.

The defendant has appealed from the judgment of conviction and the sentence. Among the grounds relied upon for reversal is that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all of the evidence. We find merit in the defendant’s contention and reverse.

After a careful review of the record on appeal, we are convinced that the evidence adduced by the state was not sufficient to measure up to that degree of proof which is required to establish guilt. The evidence here creates a strong suspicion of guilt, but a mere suspicion, no matter how great, does not warrant a conviction. Davis v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 28. Therefore, the judgment and sentence are reversed.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Arthur L. Boswer, was charged with grand larceny of four lengths of pipe. He was tried non-jury and found guilty as charged. The court imposed a sentence of eighteen months in the state penitentiary.

The defendant has appealed from the judgment of conviction and the sentence. Among the grounds relied upon for reversal is that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all of the evidence. We find merit in the defendant’s contention and reverse.

After a careful review of the record on appeal, we are convinced that the evidence adduced by the state was not sufficient to measure up to that degree of proof which is required to establish guilt. The evidence here creates a strong suspicion of guilt, but a mere suspicion, no matter how great, does not warrant a conviction. Davis v. State, Fla.App.1968, 216 So.2d 28. Therefore, the judgment and sentence are reversed.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 So. 2d 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boswer-v-state-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack