Jaramillo v. State, 417 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Jaramillo v. State, 417 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“proof that jaramillo's fingerprints were found on certain items in the murder victims' home was the only evidence offered by the state to show that jaramillo was involved in these murders.”
124 citation events (66 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Derral Wayne Hodgkins v. State of Florida (fla, 2015-06-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 35 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Derral Wayne Hodgkins v. State of Florida (4×)
Fla. · 2015 · signal: see · quote attribution · 4 verbatim quotes · confidence high
proof that jaramillo's fingerprints were found on certain items in the murder victims' home was the only evidence offered by the state to show that jaramillo was involved in these murders.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shrader v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Hillsborough County)
M.D. Fla. · 2025 · confidence medium
Our 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)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) GEORGE O. SHRADER v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Our 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)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joshua Antwan Meeks v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
In Knight II, the supreme court rejected the view that the special standard of review should be reconsidered and abandoned: This Court has described the circumstantial evidence standard as follows: “[w]here 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.” Jaramillo v. State, 417 So. 2d 257, 257 (Fla. 1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) S. S., A Child v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
A constructive possession theory required the State “to prove two elements: that [S.S.] had (1) dominion and control over the contraband and (2) knowledge that the contraband was within his presence.” Knight v. State, 186 So. 3d 1005, 1012 (Fla. 2016). 7 This type of claim can be proven by circumstantial evidence, but it is subject to the “circumstantial evidence standard,” which requires that “[w]here 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 reason…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) S. S., A Child v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
A constructive possession theory required the State “to prove two elements: that [S.S.] had (1) dominion and control over the contraband and (2) knowledge that the contraband was within his presence.” Knight v. State, 186 So. 3d 1005, 1012 (Fla. 2016). 7 This type of claim can be proven by circumstantial evidence, but it is subject to the “circumstantial evidence standard,” which requires that “[w]here 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 reason…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) JOSEPH DEJESUS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
The Florida Supreme Court elaborated on this standard in Knight , stating, “[w]here the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the *288 evidence may suggest guilty a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Knight, 186 So.3d at 1009 (alterations in original) (quoting Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla. 1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard Kevin Kline v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Furthermore, “ ‘[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. Law, 559 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla. 1989)); see also Knight v. State, 186 So.3d 1005, 1009 (Fla. 2016) (“This Court has described the circumstantial evidence standard as follows: ‘[wjhere the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt[,] a conviction cannot be sustain…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tucker v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
When the State’s proof of a defendant’s guilt is wholly circumstantial,-it is not sufficient that the proof is consistent with guilt; it must also be “inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla.1982) (quoting McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972 , 976 n. 12 (Fla.1977)); see also Westbrooks, 145 So.3d at 877 .
examined Cited as authority (rule) Jonathon Knight v. State of Florida (4×)
Fla. · 2016 · confidence medium
ANALYSIS This Court has described the circumstantial evidence standard as follows: “[wjhere the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guiltf,] a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kim Jackson v. State of Florida
Fla. · 2015 · confidence medium
For example, in Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 258 (Fla.1982), the defendant’s fingerprints were lifted from a knife found on a table in the victims’ house, a grocery bag found next to a chair, and the packaging for a knife that was found near one of the victims.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gosciminski v. State
Fla. · 2013 · confidence medium
Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla.1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Knight v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
As we have already discussed, the Florida Supreme Court mandates 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.” Jaramillo, 417 So.2d at 257 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parker v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla.1982) (finding that defendant's reasonable explanation as to how his fingerprints came to be on items in the victims' home was not inconsistent with the state's evidence); West v. State, 585 So.2d 439, 441 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (finding that the state's own evidence negated defendant's knowledge that a crime was about to be committed *1100 rendering the state's circumstantial evidence insufficient to support a "guilty verdict for one not directly active in the crime"); Gale v. State, 726 So.2d 328, 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (finding that the defendant…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thorp v. State
Fla. · 2000 · confidence medium
We recognize that while the DNA evidence, like fingerprint evidence, does not conclusively prove that Thorp committed the murder, cf. Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla.1982) (disregarding fingerprint evidence where State failed to prove the defendant's fingerprints could only have been placed on items in victim's home at time murder was committed), the DNA evidence supports the State's contention that Thorp was with the victim in the park around the time she was killed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garcia v. State
Fla. · 1994 · confidence medium
Although this case was based substantially on circumstantial evidence, we find that the evidence was "inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence," Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla. 1982); McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972 , 976 n. 12 (Fla. 1977), and that the trial judge did not err in denying the motions.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Riechmann v. State
Fla. · 1991 · confidence medium
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).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jones v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
In McArthur v. State, [ 351 So.2d 972 (Fla. 1977)] (citation omitted), *320 we reiterated this standard to be that `[w]here 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.'" Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla. 1982).
discussed Cited "see" TIMOTHY LEE DOBBINS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Platt, 154 So. 3d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citing Pagan v. State, 830 So. 2d 792, 803 (Fla. 2002)). "[W]here 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 v. State, 186 So. 3d 1005, 1009 (Fla. 2016) (quoting Jaramillo v. State, 417 So. 2d 257, 257 (Fla. 1982)).
discussed Cited "see" DEMETRIUS NUGENT v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Knight v. State, 186 So. 3d 1005, 1009 (Fla. 2016) ("[W]here 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." (second alteration in original) (quoting Jaramillo v. State, 417 So. 2d 257, 257 (Fla. 1982))).
discussed Cited "see" ROBERT ALVAREZ v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Knight v. State, 186 So. 3d 1005, 1010 (Fla. 2016) (“We now expressly hold that the circumstantial evidence standard of review applies only where all of the evidence of a defendant’s guilt—i.e., the evidence tending to show that the defendant committed or participated in the crime—is circumstantial, not where any particular element of a crime is demonstrated exclusively by circumstantial evidence.”) Our supreme court has explained that under the special standard, “[w]here the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt[,] a convi…
cited Cited "see" Everett v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989)(citing Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257 (Fla.1982)).
cited Cited "see" Darling v. State
Fla. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1982).
cited Cited "see" Lewis v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla.1982).
cited Cited "see" Beasley v. State
Fla. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1982).
examined Cited "see" Leonard v. State (5×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
discussed Cited "see" Singh v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
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).
cited Cited "see" Jackson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jaramillo *1050 v. State, 417 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brandi Nicole Harris v. State of Florida (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
They must be inconsistent with innocence.’” Lindsey v. State, 14 So.3d 211, 214-15 (Fla.2009) (quoting Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53 , 163 So. 223, 223 (1935)); see also Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla.1982) (fingerprints found on items in murder victims’ home insufficient to establish involvement in murder).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ballard v. State
Fla. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257 (Fla.1982) (finding insufficient evidence to support a murder conviction when the defendant's fingerprints were found at the murder scene but the State could not prove that the prints were left at the time of the murder and was unable to refute the defendant's hypothesis that he had left the prints earlier when helping the victim's nephew straighten the garage).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Robinson v. McCampbell
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
State v. Arthur, 390 So.2d 717, 718 (Fla.1980); Elderbroom v. Knowles, 621 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257 (Fla.1982); Mutcherson v. State, 696 So.2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Long v. State
Fla. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257 (Fla.1982) (where only evidence connecting defendant to crime was fact that defendant's fingerprints were left at scene, evidence insufficient to convict).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Cochran v. State
Fla. · 1989 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 257 (Fla. 1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Mattox
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257 (Fla.1982); Williams v. State, 308 So.2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied 321 So.2d 555 (Fla.1975); A.V.P. v. State, 307 So.2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Ivey v. State, 176 So.2d 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Williams v. State
Fla. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1982).
Anibal JARAMILLO, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
60570.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jul 8, 1982.
417 So. 2d 257
Alderman.
Cited by 90 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 84%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Florida (4)

Louis Casuso and Edward McHale of the Law Offices of Casuso & McHale, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee.

ALDERMAN, Chief Justice.

Anibal Jaramillo appeals his two convictions for murder in the first degree and his sentences of death. Finding that the State's evidence is legally insufficient to support the guilty verdicts, we reverse the convictions and remand to the trial court with directions to discharge Jaramillo.

The State's case against Jaramillo was based on circumstantial evidence. A special standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence applies where a conviction is wholly based on circumstantial evidence. In McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972, 976 n. 12 (Fla. 1977), we reiterated this standard to be that "[w]here 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." See also McArthur v. Nourse, 369 So.2d 578 (Fla. 1979). Proof that Jaramillo's fingerprints were found on certain items in the murder victims' home was the only evidence offered by the State to show that Jaramillo was involved in these murders. This proof is not inconsistent with Jaramillo's reasonable explanation as to how his fingerprints came to be on these items in the victims' home. The State failed to establish that Jaramillo's fingerprints could only have been placed on the items at the time the murder was committed. Cf. Tirko v. State, 138 So.2d 388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).

The evidence the State introduced at trial showed that on December 2, 1980, police were called to a residence in Dade County where they discovered the bodies of the two victims. Each victim had been shot in the head three times. The associate medical examiner for Dade County stated that the deaths had occurred between 2 a.m., November 30, 1980, and 2 a.m., December 1, 1980. The bodies were lying in the dining-living room area where there were money and projectiles and shell casings scattered about on the floor. The male victim's hands had been tied behind his back with cord, and the female victim's hands had been handcuffed. On the handcuffs were identifiable latent fingerprints which did not belong to Jaramillo. A coil of cord similar to the cord used to tie the male victim's hands was found near his body.[*258] Near the coil was the packaging for a knife. Jaramillo's latent fingerprint was found on this item. A knife, also possessing Jaramillo's latent fingerprint, was found on the dining room table. A grocery bag was located next to a chair on the east side of the table in the dining room. Jaramillo's fingerprint was found on this bag. Two bedrooms and two closets had been ransacked, and numerous latent fingerprints were obtained from this area, none of which belonged to Jaramillo. Another fingerprint which did not belong to Jaramillo was also found on the knife wrapper. The print technician stated that he had no way of determining when the fingerprints were placed on these items. After introducing this evidence, the State rested, and Jaramillo moved for judgment of acquittal on the basis that since the State's entire case was based on the fingerprints, it failed to carry its burden of proving that the prints were left at the murder scene at the time of the crimes and at no other time. The trial court denied this motion.

Jaramillo then took the stand to explain how and when his fingerprints were placed on the items in question. He stated that he and Edison Caicedo, the male victim's nephew who lived with the victims, had known each other for several years. On Saturday, November 29, 1980, he went to Edison's home. Edison, who was home alone at the time, asked Jaramillo if he would help him straighten the garage because it was in shambles. While they were stacking boxes in the garage, Jaramillo asked Edison if he had something to cut them with so that they could be more easily stacked. Edison told him that on the table in the dining room there was a bag with a knife in it. Jaramillo took the knife out of the bag, which he said also contained light bulbs, tissue paper, and rope, and took the knife out of its wrapper, leaving the wrapper in the dining room. He then went back to the garage to cut some boxes so they could be squashed. When he finished with the boxes and put them in his car, he placed the knife back on the dining room table where he had found it. He went home about 10 o'clock that Saturday night.

The State then called Mark Breslaw, a next-door neighbor of the victims, as a rebuttal witness. He testified that on Sunday, November 30, 1980, at about 7 p.m., he heard very loud noises from the victims' home which sounded like fighting, furniture being pushed around, a scream, and a gunshot. Upon cross-examination by defense, Breslaw stated that about an hour after hearing these noises he saw Edison about one mile from his house and that Edison had a look of anxiety on his face. Another rebuttal witness for the State, Elizabeth Lambroglia, then testified that at approximately 7:45 p.m. on Sunday, November 30, she observed Edison standing near a sign located about a half mile from the victims' home and that he appeared frightened. She and her husband drove Edison to his home. They remained in the car while Edison went up to the house for less than a minute. They then took him to the shopping center where some people who knew him picked him up and drove away.

At the close of the evidence, Jaramillo again moved for judgment of acquittal. This motion was denied. He later filed a motion for new trial on the basis that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal since the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support his conviction. He also renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal. These motions were denied.

We conclude that the State's evidence was not legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case against Jaramillo. Accordingly, we reverse his convictions for first-degree murder and remand to the trial court with directions to discharge him.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.

ADKINS, J., dissents.