Davis v. State (1956)

Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956))).

Ballard, 923 So.2d at 482 (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631-32 (Fla.1956)).

"Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” Baugh v. State, 961 So.2d 198 , 203 n. 5 (Fla.2007) (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956)).

Orme v. State, 677 So.2d 258, 261 (Fla.1996) (citing Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956)). [4] Contrary to the dissenting opinion, the State did not need to prove that Evans was in exclusive possession of the east bedroom itself.

Ballard, 923 So.2d at 482 (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631-32 (Fla.1956)).

Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956).

The majority takes a divide-and-conquer approach to this evidence, explaining why each isolated piece does "not actually `corroborate' the recanted out-of-court statements." Majority op. at 205 (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956)).

We have recognized that "circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to sustain a conviction" provided that the evidence *690 is (1) "consistent with the defendant's guilt" and (2) "inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence." Orme v. State, 677 So.2d 258 , 261 & n. 1 (Fla.1996) (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956)).

Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631-32 (Fla.1956). [2] Specifically, Orme waived the factor to foreclose the State from introducing evidence he previously had sexually assaulted another woman.

Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts or circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist." Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956).

The first governing principle is recited in Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631-32 (Fla. 1956): Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist.

Cf. Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956) (characterizing “direct evidence” as “that to which the witness testifies of his own knowledge as to the facts at issue,” and “circumstantial evidence” as “proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist” (emphasis supplied)).

Twilegar v. State, 42 So. 3d 177 , 188–89 (Fla. 2010) (“‘Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist.’”) (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956)).

“Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” Baugh, 961 So. 2d at 203 n.5 (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956)).

“Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956). - 35 - the same time so unreliable that it can never, on its own, demonstrate reliance in the Engle civil context.

It is the actual exclusion of the hypothesis of innocence which clothes circumstantial evidence with the force of proof sufficient to convict.” Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629, 631-32 (Fla. 1956).

Ballard v. State, 923 So. 2d 475, 482 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629, 631-32 (Fla. 1956)).

It is the actual exclusion of the hypothesis of innocence which clothes circumstantial evidence with the force of proof sufficient to convict.” (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629, 631-32 (Fla. 1956))); Law, 559 So. 2d at 188 (“Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”).

Under this standard, “[s]uspicions alone cannot satisfy the State’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”; rather, “‘[i]t is the actual exclusion of the hypothesis of innocence which clothes circumstantial evidence with the force of proof sufficient to convict.” Ballard v. State, 923 So. 2d 475, 482 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629 631-32 (Fla. 1956)).

It is the actual exclusion of the hypothesis of innocence which clothes circumstantial evidence with the force of proof sufficient to convict.” (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631-32 (Fla. 1956))).

The conclusion as to the ultimate facts must be one which in the common experiences of men may reasonably be made on the basis of the known facts and circumstances.” Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956).

Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631-32 (Fla.1956).

Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist.’ ” (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 681 (Fla.1956)).

The conclusion as to the ultimate facts must be one which in the common experiences of men may reasonably be made.” Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956); accord Singleton v. State, 105 So.3d 542 , (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

And “[c]ir-cumstantial evidence which leaves uncertain several hypotheses, any one of which may be sound and some of which may be entirely consistent with innocence, is not adequate to sustain a verdict of guilt.” Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 632 (Fla.1956).

Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist.” Baugh v. State, 961 So.2d 198 , 203 n. 5 (Fla.2007) (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956)).

Davis, 90 So.2d at 631 (emphasis added).

Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist." Baugh v. State, 961 So.2d 198 , 203 n. 5 (Fla.2007) (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956)).

However, “[e]vi-dence which furnishes nothing stronger than a suspicion, even though it would tend to justify the suspicion that the defendant committed the crime, ... is not sufficient to sustain [a] conviction.” Ballard v. State, 923 So.2d 475, 482 (Fla.2006) (quoting Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631-32 (Fla.1956)).

Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631-32 (Fla. 1956).

To the extent claim 9 states a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, it is without merit. [8] Claim 4 is also procedurally barred. [9] Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956), sets forth the standard to be applied in cases based on circumstantial evidence. [10] Our recitation of the facts did not rely on, or even mention, Gurley's statement that she saw Duckett leave the store with a small person in his car. [11] Duckett also broadly claims that the State failed t…

“Direct evidence is that to which the witness testifies of his own knowledge [of] the facts at issue.” Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956).

Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956); McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972 (Fla.1977).

Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Sec. 6." Davis v. State, 436 So.2d 196, 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)(quoting Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956)). [1] Here, the circumstantial evidence was adequate to support the conclusion that Deputy Lapier heard, and relied upon, Deputy Baldwin's radio call in making the stop.

In Smith , this Court relied, at least in part, on the State's presentation of "live, direct testimony" from two of Smith's convicted codefendants regarding Smith's participation in the robbery and murder of the victims. [18] See Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956) ("Direct evidence is that to which the witness testifies of his own knowledge as to the facts at issue."); see also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 401.1 (2000 ed.) ("Direct evidence is evidence which requi…

Steverson, 695 So.2d at 690 . [17] See Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956) ("Direct evidence is that to which the witness testifies of his own knowledge as to the facts at issue."); see also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 401.1 (2000 ed.) ("Direct evidence is evidence which requires only the inference that what the witness said is true to prove a material fact; e.g., `I saw A shoot B' is direct evidence that A shot B.").

In Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956), the court explained the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence as follows: Direct evidence is that to which the witness testifies of his own knowledge as to the facts at issue.

Although such circumstantial evidence *1252 alone may be insufficient to prove guilt unless it is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, see Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956), the referee's findings here were not based solely on this evidence.

“Direct evidence is that to which the witness testifies of his own knowledge as to the facts at issue.” Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956).

"Direct evidence is that to which the witness testifies of his own knowledge as to the facts at issue." Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956).

See, e.g., Mungin v. State, 689 So.2d 1026, 1029 (Fla.1995); State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989); Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631-32 (Fla.1956).

Cox v. State, 555 So.2d 352, 353 (Fla.1989); Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956).

E.g., State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1989); Cox v. State, 555 So.2d 352, 353 (Fla. 1989); Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla. 1982); McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972 , 976 n. 12 (Fla. 1977); Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956).

Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956) (citations omitted); see also Cox v. State, 555 So.2d 352 (Fla. 1989); Thomas v. State, 531 So.2d 708 (Fla. 1988); McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972 (Fla. 1977).

Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956); McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972 (Fla. 1977).

See Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla.1982); Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631-32 (Fla.1956); Townsley v. State, 443 So.2d 1072, 1073 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Walton v. State, 404 So.2d 776, 777-78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So.2d 471 (Fla.1982).

Appellant further argues that even if his incriminating statements are admissible, the trial court nevertheless erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because there is a reasonable hypothesis of innocence regarding the element of his intent which precluded the court’s find ing beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the motor was stolen, citing Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956), and Gains v. State, 417 So.2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Even though the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to suggest a probability of guilt, it is not thereby adequate to support a conviction if it is likewise consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence." Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631-32 (Fla. 1956) (citations omitted).

"Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist... ." Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 1956).

“Circumstantial evidence is proof of certain facts and circumstances from which the trier of fact may infer that the ultimate facts in dispute existed or did not exist.. .. ” Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla.1956).