Keen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Keen v. State

335 So. 2d 583, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13908

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 22, 1976·No. No. 75-1729·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant claims that the evidence upon which he was found guilty by a jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny was legally insufficient because it was circumstantial and did not preclude the reasonableness of his own explanation for his presence at the scene. A review of the evidence not only shows glaring inconsistencies in defendant’s story, but also completely fails to explain his exit from the house with a pillowcase filled with articles which the jury could reasonably have believed were removed from the premises. See Hernandez v. State, Fla.App.1974, 305 So.2d 211.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant claims that the evidence upon which he was found guilty by a jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny was legally insufficient because it was circumstantial and did not preclude the reasonableness of his own explanation for his presence at the scene. A review of the evidence not only shows glaring inconsistencies in defendant’s story, but also completely fails to explain his exit from the house with a pillowcase filled with articles which the jury could reasonably have believed were removed from the premises. See Hernandez v. State, Fla.App.1974, 305 So.2d 211.

Affirmed.

Keen v. State, 335 So. 2d 583, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13908 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

335 So. 2d 583 (Keen v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related