Vathis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vathis v. State

729 So. 2d 453, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2680, 1999 WL 129450

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 1999

DocketNo. 97-3228

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 729 So. 2d 453 (Vathis 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

Vathis v. State, 729 So. 2d 453, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2680, 1999 WL 129450 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove the elements of capital sexual battery and lewd, lascivious, or indecent assault. Even though the defense put on evidence, appellant was under no obligation thereafter to renew the motion for judgment of acquittal he made at the close of the state’s evidence. See Morris v. State, 721 So.2d 725, 726 (Fla.1998). But that motion did not preserve the sufficiency points now argued on appeal. See, e.g., Clark v. State, 635 So.2d 68, 68-69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Showers v. State, 570 So.2d 377, 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Cornwell v. State, 425 So.2d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state’s case raised only the issue of the perpetrator’s identity. See G.W.B. v. State, 340 So.2d 969, 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 948 (Fla.1977). The evidence of appellant’s identity was more than sufficient.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, BOOTH, and BENTON, JJ„ CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove the elements of capital sexual battery and lewd, lascivious, or indecent assault. Even though the defense put on evidence, appellant was under no obligation thereafter to renew the motion for judgment of acquittal he made at the close of the state’s evidence. See Morris v. State, 721 So.2d 725, 726 (Fla.1998). But that motion did not preserve the sufficiency points now argued on appeal. See, e.g., Clark v. State, 635 So.2d 68, 68-69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Showers v. State, 570 So.2d 377, 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Cornwell v. State, 425 So.2d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state’s case raised only the issue of the perpetrator’s identity. See G.W.B. v. State, 340 So.2d 969, 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 948 (Fla.1977). The evidence of appellant’s identity was more than sufficient.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, BOOTH, and BENTON, JJ„ CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

729 So. 2d 453, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2680, 1999 WL 129450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vathis-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack