Sullo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sullo v. State

860 So. 2d 1098, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18792, 2003 WL 22927145

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 12, 2003·No. No. 5D02-2653·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

See Brothers v. State, 853 So.2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“When the evidence against a criminally accused person is circumstantial, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted if the state fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt”); see also Woods v. State, 733 So.2d 980, 985 (Fla.1999) (stating that in determining whether to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal, conflicting evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the state, and if there is competent, substantial evidence supporting a jury’s verdict, the verdict will not be overturned on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, THOMPSON and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

See Brothers v. State, 853 So.2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“When the evidence against a criminally accused person is circumstantial, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted if the state fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt”); see also Woods v. State, 733 So.2d 980, 985 (Fla.1999) (stating that in determining whether to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal, conflicting evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the state, and if there is competent, substantial evidence supporting a jury’s verdict, the verdict will not be overturned on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, THOMPSON and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Sullo v. State, 860 So. 2d 1098, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18792, 2003 WL 22927145 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

860 So. 2d 1098 (Sullo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related