Harvard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harvard v. State

512 So. 2d 337, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2236, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12165

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 15, 1987

DocketNo. 86-2807

StatusPublished

This text of 512 So. 2d 337 (Harvard 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

Harvard v. State, 512 So. 2d 337, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2236, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12165 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of judgments of conviction based upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of second degree murder and possession of a knife in the commission of a felony. Appellant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the convictions and that the trial court erred in denying his motions for a judgment of acquittal and for a new trial.

We have carefully considered appellant’s contentions in the light of the record and briefs and have concluded that reversible error has not been shown. See Heiney v. State, 447 So.2d 210 (Fla.) (whether evidence fails to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is for jury to determine, and where there is substantial, competent evidence to support jury verdict, supreme court will not reverse judgment based upon verdict), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 920, 105 S.Ct. 303, 83 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984); Spinkellink v. State, 313 So.2d 666 (Fla.1975) (judgment of conviction comes to supreme court with presumption of correctness; defendant’s claim of insufficiency of the evidence cannot prevail where there is substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 3227, 49 L.Ed.2d 1221 (1976); E.Y. v. State, 390 So.2d 776, 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (district court will not substitute its judgment for that of trier of fact nor pit its judgment against determinations of fact properly rendered by trier of fact).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of judgments of conviction based upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of second degree murder and possession of a knife in the commission of a felony. Appellant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the convictions and that the trial court erred in denying his motions for a judgment of acquittal and for a new trial.

We have carefully considered appellant’s contentions in the light of the record and briefs and have concluded that reversible error has not been shown. See Heiney v. State, 447 So.2d 210 (Fla.) (whether evidence fails to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is for jury to determine, and where there is substantial, competent evidence to support jury verdict, supreme court will not reverse judgment based upon verdict), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 920, 105 S.Ct. 303, 83 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984); Spinkellink v. State, 313 So.2d 666 (Fla.1975) (judgment of conviction comes to supreme court with presumption of correctness; defendant’s claim of insufficiency of the evidence cannot prevail where there is substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 911, 96 S.Ct. 3227, 49 L.Ed.2d 1221 (1976); E.Y. v. State, 390 So.2d 776, 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (district court will not substitute its judgment for that of trier of fact nor pit its judgment against determinations of fact properly rendered by trier of fact).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

512 So. 2d 337, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2236, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 12165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvard-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack