Tucker v. State

Florida Circuit Courts

Tucker v. State

7 Fla. Supp. 2d 143

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedOctober 3, 1984

DocketCase No. 83-151-AC

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 143 (Tucker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tucker v. State, 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 143 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

FEDER, Judge.

The appellant was arrested and convicted for allegedly trespassing at a Greyhound Bus Terminal. He was advised by the State’s only witness, Officer Watson, that the appellant had to leave unless he was there for a legitimate purpose such as transportation or picking up or delivering people. He left. The appellant later re-entered the terminal and was immediately arrested.

Officer Watson did not question the appellant upon his return as to [144]*144the reason for the return. The Officer also admitted that immediately upon arrest the appellant stated he was there to pick up his wife. No further questioning or investigation took place to establish as to whether or not the wife was in the station, on which bus she was arriving, from which destination she had left, nor even the time of expected arrival.

The burden on the State to establish a prima facie case was never met.

Even assuming that the evidence tended to establish a “Trespassing”, the conviction would have to be overturned since the evidence was not wholly inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972 (Fla. 1977).

PER CURIAM, the above matter is hereby reversed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

FEDER, Judge.

The appellant was arrested and convicted for allegedly trespassing at a Greyhound Bus Terminal. He was advised by the State’s only witness, Officer Watson, that the appellant had to leave unless he was there for a legitimate purpose such as transportation or picking up or delivering people. He left. The appellant later re-entered the terminal and was immediately arrested.

Officer Watson did not question the appellant upon his return as to [144]*144the reason for the return. The Officer also admitted that immediately upon arrest the appellant stated he was there to pick up his wife. No further questioning or investigation took place to establish as to whether or not the wife was in the station, on which bus she was arriving, from which destination she had left, nor even the time of expected arrival.

The burden on the State to establish a prima facie case was never met.

Even assuming that the evidence tended to establish a “Trespassing”, the conviction would have to be overturned since the evidence was not wholly inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972 (Fla. 1977).

PER CURIAM, the above matter is hereby reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Fla. Supp. 2d 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-state-flacirct-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack