Sullo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sullo v. State

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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 2003

DocketNo. 5D02-2653

StatusPublished

This text of 860 So. 2d 1098 (Sullo 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

860 So. 2d 1098, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 18792, 2003 WL 22927145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullo-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack