green
Positive treatment
17.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Markeith D. Loyd v. State of Florida
In his initial brief, Loyd refers to this as “the ‘reasonable hypothesis of innocence’ motion for judgment of acquittal,” but his citation to Bush, 295 So. 3d 179 , makes clear that he is indeed referencing the elimination of the special standard of review that was previously applied in wholly circumstantial evidence cases, i.e., “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,” id. at 200 (quoting Knight v. State,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Manatee County)
Bush v. State, 295 So.3d 179 , 200 (2020) (quoting Knight v. State, 107 So. 3d 449, 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)), explains the difference between the special standard applied if the conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence and the historical standard applied if the conviction is based on some direct evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joshua Antwan Meeks v. State of Florida
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In Knight v. State, 107 So. 3d 449, 456-58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (Knight I), the Fifth District noted that most states now have rejected the special rule, as have all federal courts since 1982.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
2D13-2712 / Shrader v. State
Generally, the relationship between the strength of circumstantial evidence against a defendant's purported hypothesis of innocence and the reasonableness of a defendant's purported hypothesis of innocence should be inversely proportional. "[T]he stronger the circumstantial evidence, the more likely that a rational jury will be justified in rejecting explanations other than the guilt of the accused as unreasonable." Knight v. State, 107 So. 3d 449, 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), approved, 186 So. 3d 1005 (Fla. 2016).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Jonathon Knight v. State of Florida
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 451 (certifying conflict with Evans, P.M.M., N.KW., E.H.A., S.B., and Cook).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kemp v. State
In 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)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Westbrooks v. State
In 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).
cited
Cited "see"
Sean Alonzo Bush v. State of Florida
See Knight v. State, 107 So. 3d 449, 456-57 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), approved, 186 So. 3d 1005 (Fla. 2016).
discussed
Cited "see"
GEORGE O. SHRADER v. STATE OF FLORIDA
See Jaramillo v. State, 417 So. 2d 257, 257 (Fla. 1982) ("Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt[,] a conviction cannot be 15Knight v. State, 186 So. 3d 1005 (Fla. 2016). 16The en banc majority notes that the dissenter from the initial panel decision "cited the supreme court's opinion approving the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision in Knight v. State, 107 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), approved, 186 So. 3d 1005 (Fla. 2016)," perhaps giving the impression that he argued against employing the circumstantial evidence rule in…
cited
Cited "see"
Joseph v. State
See Knight v. State , 107 So. 3d 449 , 456-62 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).
cited
Cited "see"
Joseph v. State
See Knight v. State , 107 So. 3d 449 , 456-62 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Campbell
See Knight v. State, 107 So.3d 449, 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), review granted, No. SC13-564, 2014 WL 3767875 (Fla. July 29, 2014).
cited
Cited "see"
Jennings v. State
See Knight v. State, 107 So.3d 449, 456-58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Timothy W. Fletcher v. State of Florida
See, e.g., Knight v. State, 107 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (explaining that this Court (previously) mandated that “Florida’s appellate courts use a ‘special standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence . . . where a conviction is wholly based on circumstantial evidence’ ” (citation omitted)), approved, 186 So. 3d 1005 . 27.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Timothy W. Fletcher v. State of Florida
See, e.g., Knight v. State, 107 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (explaining that this Court (previously) mandated that “Florida’s appellate courts use a ‘special standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence . . . where a conviction is wholly based on circumstantial evidence’ ” (citation omitted)), approved, 186 So. 3d 1005 . 27.
James BROWN
v.
STATE of Florida
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 1D12-6056.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jan 11, 2013.
James Brown, pro se, Petitioner., Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Padovano, Ray, Rowe.
Published
DISMISSED. See Baker v. State, 878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004).