special circumstantial evidence standard in Florida

2015In a concurring opinion, two judges of the panel decision expressed their concern with Florida law which requires courts to apply a special rule in circumstantial criminal cases, noting the Fifth District’s analysis in Knight v. State, and the statement there that “Florida should join the federal courts and the vast majority of states that have abandoned use of a special circumstantial evidence standard of review.” Id. at 881 (Morris and Black, JJ., concurring) (quoting Knight v. State, 107 So.3d 449, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)).

2014In Knight v. State, 107 So.3d 449, 455, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), the Fifth District concluded that the special circumstantial evidence test did not apply under the facts of that case but also opined that “Florida should join the federal courts and the vast majority of states that have abandoned use of a special circumstantial evidence standard of review.” See also Rocker, 122 So.3d at 912 (Villanti, J., dissenting); Sims, 110 So.3d at 117 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

2020In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 1981) (rejecting the special standard for evaluating circumstantial evidence as “confusing and incorrect”) (quoting Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 139-40 (1954)).

2020In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 1981) (rejecting the special standard for evaluating circumstantial evidence as “confusing and incorrect”) (quoting Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 139-40 (1954)).

2019Because the evidence pointing to Wright as the perpetrator was wholly circumstantial, the court applied the special circumstantial evidence standard of review, i.e., "not only must the evidence be sufficient to establish each element of the offense," it must also "be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence proposed by the defendant." Id. at 521 (quoting Twilegar v. State, 42 So. 3d 177, 188 (Fla. 2010)).

2019See Cornwell v. State, 425 So. 2d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (holding that a defendant’s motion alleging “the State had failed to prove a prima facie case” was “deficient to preserve the point on appeal”); see also Charles v. State, 253 So. 3d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“[A]ppellant cannot raise for the first time on appeal an argument that the special circumstantial evidence standard applies.”).

2019See Cornwell v. State, 425 So. 2d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (holding that a defendant’s motion alleging “the State had failed to prove a prima facie case” was “deficient to preserve the point on appeal”); see also Charles v. State, 253 So. 3d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“[A]ppellant cannot raise for the first time on appeal an argument that the special circumstantial evidence standard applies.”).

2019Our supreme court has described the circumstantial evidence standard as follows: "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." Knight, 186 So. 3d at 1009 (alteration in original) (quoting Jaramillo v. State, 417 So. 2d 257, 257 (Fla. 1982)).

2019However, in Knight the supreme court clarified the special circumstantial evidence standard of review and narrowed its application to cases in which the evidence pointing to the identity of the perpetrator of the charged offense is wholly circumstantial. 186 So. 3d at 1010 .

2019Our supreme court has described the circumstantial evidence standard as follows: "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." Knight, 186 So. 3d at 1009 (alteration in original) (quoting Jaramillo v. State, 417 So. 2d 257, 257 (Fla. 1982)).

2019See Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002) ("If, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction.").

2015In a concurring opinion, two judges of the panel decision expressed their concern with Florida law which requires courts to apply a special rule in circumstantial criminal cases, noting the Fifth District’s analysis in Knight v. State, and the statement there that “Florida should join the federal courts and the vast majority of states that have abandoned use of a special circumstantial evidence standard of review.” Id. at 881 (Morris and Black, JJ., concurring) (quoting Knight v. State, 107 So.3d 449, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)).

2014In Knight v. State, 107 So.3d 449, 455, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), the Fifth District concluded that the special circumstantial evidence test did not apply under the facts of that case but also opined that “Florida should join the federal courts and the vast majority of states that have abandoned use of a special circumstantial evidence standard of review.” See also Rocker, 122 So.3d at 912 (Villanti, J., dissenting); Sims, 110 So.3d at 117 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

2014In Knight v. State, 107 So.3d 449, 455, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), the Fifth District concluded that the special circumstantial evidence test did not apply under the facts of that case but also opined that “Florida should join the federal courts and the vast majority of states that have abandoned use of a special circumstantial evidence standard of review.” See also Rocker, 122 So.3d at 912 (Villanti, J., dissenting); Sims, 110 So.3d at 117 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

2013See also Rocker v. State, 122 So.3d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (Villanti, J„ dissenting) (agreeing with Knight that the supreme court should reconsider the special circumstantial evidence standard); State v. Sims, 110 So.3d 113, 117-18 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (same). .

2013See also Rocker v. State, 122 So.3d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (Villanti, J„ dissenting) (agreeing with Knight that the supreme court should reconsider the special circumstantial evidence standard); State v. Sims, 110 So.3d 113, 117-18 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (same). .

2013See also Rocker v. State, 122 So.3d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (Villanti, J„ dissenting) (agreeing with Knight that the supreme court should reconsider the special circumstantial evidence standard); State v. Sims, 110 So.3d 113, 117-18 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (same). .

2013See also Rocker v. State, 122 So.3d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (Villanti, J„ dissenting) (agreeing with Knight that the supreme court should reconsider the special circumstantial evidence standard); State v. Sims, 110 So.3d 113, 117-18 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (same). .