Ford v. State, 251 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). · Go Syfert
Search
Ford v. State, 251 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Siplin v. State (fladistctapp, 2007-12-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Siplin v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Although a jury is normally free to "draw or refuse to draw inferences from the evidence presented," Ford v. State, 251 So.2d 562, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), a special standard applies when the state attempts to secure a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence: "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." McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972, 976 (Fla.1977) (citations omitted).
cited Cited "see" M.P.W. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ford v. State, 251 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
cited Cited "see" MPW v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ford v. State, 251 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
Gerald FORD, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
70-1115.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug 10, 1971.
251 So. 2d 562
Swann, C.J., and Charles Carroll and Hendry.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

Whitman, Wolfe & Glick, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Bruce L. Scheiner, Miami, for appellee.

Before SWANN, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant Ford appeals a judgment of guilty of extortion entered in a jury trial of the cause begun upon a two count information for conspiracy to extort and extortion.

The sole point on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence. It would serve no purpose to detail the events surrounding the "shake-down" of a male nurse by three young persons and the defendant, who was then a probationary officer of the City of Miami.

We have reviewed the record and note that it reveals more than a lack of good judgment by a young officer combined with a peculiar chain of events during a short span of time. Rather, there is sufficient, substantial competent evidence in the record to support the jury verdict. The jury's function as the trier of fact is to evaluate the evidence, weigh the credibility of witnesses, and resolve conflicts in the testimony. They can draw or refuse to draw inferences from the evidence presented. Their determination is accorded[*563] great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal except for the lack of substantial competent evidence.

Therefore, the judgment and sentence appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.