State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …a person's confession to a crime is not sufficient evidence of a criminal act where no independent direct or circumstantial evidence exists to substantiate the occurrence of a crime.
291 citation events (166 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: K. T. B. v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2019-11-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) K. T. B. v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
we also reject the implication . . . that identification of the defendant as the guilty party is a necessary predicate for the admission of a confession.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) A. P. v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a person's confession to a crime is not sufficient evidence of a criminal act where no independent direct or circumstantial evidence exists to substantiate the occurrence of a crime.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) J.B. v. State (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a person's confession to a crime is not sufficient evidence of a criminal act where no independent direct or circumstantial evidence exists to substantiate the occurrence of a crime.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Syverud v. State (6×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
efore a confession is admitted the state has the burden of proving by substantial evidence that a crime was committed, and that such proof may be in the form of circumstantial evidence.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Snell v. State (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
efore a confession is admitted the state has the burden of proving by substantial evidence that a crime was committed, and that such proof may be in the form of circumstantial evidence.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Parker
N.C. · 1985 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
substantial evidence tending to show commission of the charged crime
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) A.P. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a person's confession to a crime is not sufficient evidence of a criminal act where no independent direct or circumstantial evidence exists to substantiate the occurrence of a crime.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Napier v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Polk County)
M.D. Fla. · 2024 · confidence medium
“The state is not required to ‘rebut conclusively every possible variation’ of events which could be inferred from the evidence, but only to introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of events.” Law, 559 So. 2d at 187 (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 826 (Fla. 1989)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF FLORIDA v. MARCUS NATHAN JACKSON
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Generally, "[a] person's confession to a crime is not sufficient evidence of a criminal act where no independent direct or circumstantial evidence exists to substantiate the occurrence of a crime." State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 825 (Fla. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) QUANAVIS LADON PENDER vs STATE OF FLORIDA (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
In other words, “[a] person’s confession to a crime is not sufficient evidence of a criminal act where no independent direct or circumstantial evidence exists to substantiate the occurrence of a crime.” State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 825 (Fla. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ravelo v. Florida Department of Corrections
S.D. Fla. · 2023 · confidence medium
“Corpus delicti”—Latin for “body of the crime”—is an old common law doctrine that requires the prosecutor, before the defendant’s confession can be admitted, to “prov[e] by substantial evidence that a crime was committed[.]” State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 824 (Fla. 1976); see also J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998) (“[T]he State cannot offer into evidence an admission against interest to prove an element of the charged offense in the absence of an independently established corpus delicti.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) S.I., A CHILD v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
In criminal trials, the State must independently present “‘substantial evidence’ tending to show the commission of the charged crime.” State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 825 (Fla. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) S.I., A CHILD v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
In criminal trials, the State must independently present “‘substantial evidence’ tending to show the commission of the charged crime.” State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 825 (Fla. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Walt McCoy Porter v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
The purpose of the rule is to protect a person from being “convicted out of derangement, mistake or official fabrication.” Burks v. State, 613 So. 2d 441, 443 (Fla. 1993) (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 825 (Fla. 1976)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) N. G. S. v. STATE OF FLORIDA (3×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
The gist of the rule is that before it can have the defendant's confession admitted, the State must establish "(1) that a crime of the type charged was committed; and (2) that the crime was committed through the criminal agency of another." Franqui v. State, 699 So. 2d 1312, 1317 (Fla. 1997) (citing State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 825 (Fla. 1976)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garcia v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Under this special standard of review, the State “is not required to ‘rebut conclusively every possible variation’ of events which could be inferred from the evidence, but only to introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of events.” State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 189 (Fla. 1989) (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 826 (Fla. 1976)) (footnote omitted); see Johnston, 863 So. 2d at 283 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Demeko Ladjuan Sims v. State of Florida (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
The corpus-delicti rule turns on the “fundamental principle of law that no person be adjudged guilty of a crime until the state has shown that a crime has been committed.” State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 825 (Fla. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jonathan Charles v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
However, “[t]he state is not required to ‘rebut conclusively every possible variation’ of events which could be inferred from the evidence, but only to introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of events.” Id. (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 826 (Fla. 1976)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Tumlinson (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Generally "[a] person's confession to a crime is not sufficient evidence of a criminal act where no independent direct or circumstantial evidence exists to substantiate the occurrence of a crime." State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 825 (Fla. 1976).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Acoff v. State (3×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Id. at 825 (footnotes omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Derral Wayne Hodgkins v. State of Florida (2×)
Fla. · 2015 · confidence medium
As we stated in Law, “[t]he state is not required to ‘rebut conclusively every possible variation’ of events which could be inferred from the evidence, but only to introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of events.” 559 So. 2d at 189 (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 826 (Fla. 1976)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Sims
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
In Lincoln , the supreme court cited to State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 826 (Fla.1976), in which it reviewed a corpus delicti challenge.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Corona v. State (2×)
Fla. · 2011 · confidence medium
The judicial quest for truth requires that no person be convicted out of derangement, mistake or official fabrication. *1244 Id. at 825 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Durousseau v. State (2×)
Fla. · 2010 · confidence medium
We have held, "The state is not required to `rebut conclusively every possible variation' of events which could be inferred from the evidence, but only to introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the Defendant's theory of events." Law, 559 So.2d at 189 (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 826 (Fla.1976)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Walton (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
It observed that in reversing the defendant’s convictions, “the First District Court of Appeal appears to have adopted a legal standard which requires overwhelming proof by direct evidence that the crime charged was committed and that the defendant is the guilty party.” Id. at 824-25 (emphasis added).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Modeste v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976); Snell v. State, 939 So.2d 1175, 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brose v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976); Snell v. State, 939 So.2d 1175, 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Evans v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Circumstantial evidence, by its very nature, is not free from alternate interpretations, and “[t]he State is not required to ‘rebut conclusively every possible variation’ of events which could be inferred from the evidence, but only to introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of events.” Law, 559 So.2d at 189 (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 826 (Fla.1976)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) BE v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
In State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 824 (Fla.1976), the Florida Supreme Court declared that "the State has the burden of proving by substantial evidence that a crime was committed, and that such proof may be in the *1146 form of circumstantial evidence." The State, however, does not have to prove the identity of the defendant as the guilty party.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) B.E. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
In State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 824 (Fla.1976), the Florida Supreme Court declared that “the State has the burden of proving by substantial evidence that a crime was committed, and that such proof may be in the form of circumstantial evidence.” The State, however, does not have to prove the identity of the defendant as the guilty party.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Studemire v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to ensure that no conviction is obtained "based on `derangement, mistake or official fabrication.'" Id. ( quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla. 1976)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Redding v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Id. (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 826 (Fla.1976)) (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gibson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
In a case of circumstantial evidence, "[t]he state is not required to `rebut conclusively every possible variation' of events which could be inferred from the evidence, but only to introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant's theory of events." State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla.1989) (footnote omitted; quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 826 (Fla.1976)). "[I]f the state does not offer evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant's hypothesis, `the evidence [would be] such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the [state] can be …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robinson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
See Law, 559 So.2d at 189 ; State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 826 (Fla.1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Esler v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
The judicial quest for truth requires that no person be convicted out of *640 derangement, mistake or official fabrication." State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Geiger v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla. 1976) (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garcia v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Although "[t]he state is not required to `rebut conclusively every possible variation' of events which could be inferred from the evidence," it must "introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant's theory of events." Id. at 189 (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 826 (Fla.1976)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Colorado
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
This usually requires the identity of the victim of the crime." Allen, 335 So.2d at 825 (footnote omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. State
Fla. · 2004 · confidence medium
State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla.1989) (citations omitted) (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 826 (Fla.1976)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chaparro v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
The primary purpose behind the rule "is to protect a defendant from being convicted of a nonexistent crime due to `derangement, mistake or official fabrication.'" Baxter v. State, 586 So.2d 1196, 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Carwise
Fla. · 2003 · confidence medium
State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Dionne
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
"In order to prove corpus delicti, the State must establish: (1) that a crime of the type charged was committed; and (2) that the crime was committed through the criminal agency of another." Franqui, 699 So.2d at 1317 (citing State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla. 1976)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) McArthur v. State (4×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
The rule is designed to insure that "no person be convicted out of derangement, mistake or official fabrication." State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976). [3] *1193 Florida has followed the majority rule in holding that the "corpus delicti" of a crime is the body, foundation or substance of the crime, which is generally said to include two elements: the act and the criminal agency of the act.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gore v. State
Fla. · 2001 · confidence medium
Law, 559 So.2d at 188-89 (citations and footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 826 (Fla.1976)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Price v. State (3×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
In answering this question, we should look to the policy behind the corpus delicti rule as stated in Burks v. State, 613 So.2d 441, 443 (Fla.1993); quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 824 (Fla.1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brancaccio v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Schwab v. State, 636 So.2d 3 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 950 , 115 S.Ct. 364 , 130 L.Ed.2d 317 (1994); State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976). [5] See now § 985.207(2), Fla. Stat. (1999) (formerly § 39.037).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Leonard v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Instead, every case would have to go to the jury." Fowler, 492 So.2d at 1347 . 3 State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 826 (Fla. 1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) JB v. State
Fla. · 1998 · confidence medium
As we stated in Burks , the primary policy reason for the rule is that "[t]he judicial quest for truth requires that no person be convicted out of derangement, mistake or official fabrication." Id. at 443 (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) J.B. v. State
Fla. · 1998 · confidence medium
As we stated in Burks , the primary policy reason for the rule is that “[t]he judicial quest for truth requires that no person be convicted out of derangement, mistake or official fabrication.” Id. at 443 (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wainwright v. State
Fla. · 1997 · confidence medium
Bassett [v. State, 449 So.2d 803, 807 (Fla. 1984) ]; State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976).
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Tommy Earl ALLEN, Respondent.
47785.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jul 21, 1976.
335 So. 2d 823
England.
Cited by 155 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 81%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (1)

[*824] Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Jeanne Dawes Schwartz and Joseph W. Lawrence, Asst. Attys. Gen., for petitioner.

Bartley K. Vickers, of Mahon, Farley & Vickers, Jacksonville, for respondent.

ENGLAND, Justice.

This case was brought here by petition for a writ of certiorari alleging direct conflict between the decision of the First District Court of Appeal, reported at 314 So.2d 154, and Sciortino v. State, 115 So.2d 93 (Fla.2d DCA 1959). We find the requisite direct conflict to be present in the form of an announcement of a rule of law different from that announced by another Florida appellate court.[1] We have jurisdiction for review under Article V, Section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.

The sole point of law involved in this case concerns the state's burden of proving the "corpus delicti"[2] before a defendant's confession may be admitted into evidence. The rule of law announced in Sciortino is to the effect that before a confession is admitted the state has the burden of proving by substantial evidence that a crime was committed, and that such proof may be in the form of circumstantial evidence. This rule of law was first announced by this Court in Holland v. State, 39 Fla. 178, 22 So. 298 (1897). It has been re-affirmed more recently by this Court in Frazier v. State, 107 So.2d 16 (Fla. 1958), and applied by the Third District Court of Appeal in County of Dade v. Pedigo, 181 So.2d 720 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 188 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1966), and in Jackson v. State, 192 So.2d 78 (Fla.3d DCA 1966).

In its opinion in this proceeding, the First District Court of Appeal appears to have adopted a legal standard which requires overwhelming proof by direct evidence that the crime charged was committed and that[*825] the defendant is the guilty party. The Court's opinion states:

"Appellant's confession is the only direct evidence that places him in the driver's seat at the time of the accident. However, there is strong circumstantial evidence.
......
The State failed to establish a prima facie case independent of the admission of the defendant."[3]

This was error which requires reversal, and we reaffirm that circumstantial evidence may be presented prior to admission of a defendant's confession in order to establish the occurrence of the necessary elements of the alleged crime. We also reject the implication in the district court's opinion that identification of the defendant as the guilty party is a necessary predicate for the admission of a confession.

It is a fundamental principle of law that no person be adjudged guilty of a crime until the state has shown that a crime has been committed. The state therefore must show that a harm has been suffered of the type contemplated by the charges (for example, a death in the case of a murder charge or a loss of property in the case of a theft charge), and that such harm was incurred due to the criminal agency of another.[4] This usually requires the identity of the victim of the crime. A person's confession to a crime is not sufficient evidence of a criminal act where no independent direct or circumstantial evidence exists to substantiate the occurrence of a crime. The judicial quest for truth requires that no person be convicted out of derangement, mistake or official fabrication.

This rule obviously does not require the state to prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before his or her confession may be admitted. Indeed, as this Court has stated before, it is preferable that the occurrence of a crime be established before any evidence is admitted to show the identity of the guilty party, even though it is often difficult to segregate the two.[5] The state has a burden to bring forth "substantial evidence" tending to show the commission of the charged crime.[6] This standard does not require the proof to be uncontradicted or overwhelming,[7] but it must at least show the existence of each element of the crime. The state's burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a requirement to establish the defendant's guilt, not to authorize admission of his confession.[8]

On the facts of this case, the state has met its preliminary burden. The sole contention of Allen was that, before his confession was admitted, the state had not proved he was driving the vehicle from which Curtis Black was thrown and killed. This question is relevant, since there would have been no crime if Black had been the driver. Our review of the pre-confession showing by the state reveals that there was adequate circumstantial evidence that Black was the passenger. Allen was seen entering the driver's side of his car within 5 to 10 minutes of the accident which took Black's life. Black's body was found several feet from the demolished automobile under circumstances from which investigators could reasonably conclude that he occupied the passenger's side of the vehicle. Allen was found at the wreck site hanging out the passenger's side of the vehicle, with his feet on the driver's side. The car was owned by Allen, and he had been seen driving the car with Black earlier in the day.

While the facts just recited might not constitute proof beyond a reasonable[*826] doubt that Allen was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident[9] (or more importantly for present purposes, Black was not), they are in the aggregate sufficient circumstantial evidence to lay the predicate for the admission into evidence of Allen's confession that he was the driver. We are well aware that varying interpretations of circumstantial evidence are always possible in a case which involves no eye witnesses. Circumstantial evidence, by its very nature, is not free from alternate interpretations. The state is not obligated to rebut conclusively every possible variation, however, or to explain every possible construction in a way which is consistent only with the allegations against the defendant. Were those requirements placed on the state for these purposes, circumstantial evidence would always be inadequate to establish a preliminary showing of the necessary elements of a crime.

The decision of the First District Court of Appeal is quashed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

OVERTON, C.J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and DREW (Retired), JJ., concur.

1 See Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So.2d 731 (Fla. 1960).
2 This Latin phrase means literally "the body of the crime." It is regularly used in appellate decisions to mean the legal elements necessary to show that a crime was committed.
4 Sciortino, above. See also, Lee v. State, 96 Fla. 59, 117 So. 699 (1928).
5 Spanish v. State, 45 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1950).
6 Tucker v. State, 64 Fla. 518, 59 So. 941 (1912); Lambright v. State, 34 Fla. 564, 16 So. 582 (1894).
7 See, Harris v. State, 72 Fla. 128, 72 So. 520 (1916).
8 Lambright, n. 6 above. See also, Deiterle v. State, 101 Fla. 79, 134 So. 42 (1931) (concurrence).
9 See Savage v. State, 152 Fla. 367, 11 So.2d 778 (1943), for discussion of degree of circumstantial evidence required to meet the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.