State v. Moore

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Moore

425 So. 2d 1172, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18871

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 12, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1031

StatusPublished

This text of 425 So. 2d 1172 (State v. Moore) 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

State v. Moore, 425 So. 2d 1172, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18871 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals from an order granting a sworn motion to dismiss. In determining whether the State has shown a prima facie case so as to successfully resist a motion under Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, all inferences are resolved against the defendant and the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Pettis, 397 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). ■ It is to be presumed that the trial court indulged inferences in that manner. Our examination of the motion and the agreed facts (the latter substituting for a state traverse by stipulation of the parties below) lead us to conclude that while we might have permitted the case to go to the jury were that decision ours initially to make, that determination in the present posture of the case would constitute usurpation of the function of the trial court. We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents without opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State appeals from an order granting a sworn motion to dismiss. In determining whether the State has shown a prima facie case so as to successfully resist a motion under Rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, all inferences are resolved against the defendant and the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Pettis, 397 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). ■ It is to be presumed that the trial court indulged inferences in that manner. Our examination of the motion and the agreed facts (the latter substituting for a state traverse by stipulation of the parties below) lead us to conclude that while we might have permitted the case to go to the jury were that decision ours initially to make, that determination in the present posture of the case would constitute usurpation of the function of the trial court. We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.

HERSEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 So. 2d 1172, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moore-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack