Borders v. State, 74--1067
| Decision Date | 01 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--1067,74--1067 |
| Parties | Joe BORDERS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gerald Kogan, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
This appeal considers defendant's conviction by non-jury trial for conspiracy to commit the misdemeanor of bookmaking and his sentence therefor to 45 days in the Dade County Jail.
The thrust of the appeal is that the court erred in entering a judgment of guilty as the evidence was insufficient to show that the defendant had agreed with others to commit an illegal act. Borders, the defendant, contends that the law requires proof of such agreement, not just circumstantial evidence.
The State contends that there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy as alleged, that it was not necessary to prove a specific conversation in which an agreement was made but that circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy is sufficient for conviction. We agree.
A person charged with a crime may be convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Navarro v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 729, 731. See also Williams v. State, 1917, 73 Fla. 1198, 75 So. 785, 788, and Chason v. State, 1941, 148 Fla. 540, 4 So.2d 691. Proof of a formal agreement is not necessary to establish the existence of a conspiracy. United States v. Amato, 5th Cir. 1974, 495 F.2d 545. Indeed it is well recognized that the existence of a conspiracy or confederation can and will be inferred from circumstantial evidence as indicative of an overall plan. Bass v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 614, 617; United States v. Nadaline, 5th Cir. 1973, 471 F.2d 340. See also United States v. Edwards, 5th Cir. 1974, 488 F.2d 1154.
Our review of the record indicates that sufficient evidence was presented to the court to support the judgment of conviction for conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: bookmaking, and, therefore, this conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court hereby are affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fortune v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...The victim's testimony was not required because the State could prove its case through circumstantial evidence. See Borders v. State, 312 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) ("A person charged with a crime may be convictedsolely on the basis of circumstantial evidence."). Because Mr. Fortune ......
-
LaPolla v. State
...evidence indicative of an overall plan. Beke, 423 So.2d at 419 (citing Resnick v. State, 287 So.2d 24 (Fla.1973); Borders v. State, 312 So.2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)). This court has spoken similarly in, among other cases, Manner v. State, 387 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and more recentl......
-
Castillo v. State
...the unlawful act can be shown by circumstantial evidence, State v. Lamb, 348 So.2d 403, 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Borders v. State, 312 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 327 So.2d 31 (Fla.1976), it is also settled that mere presence at the crime scene, without more, is insuffic......
-
Hanson v. State, 77-812
...335 So.2d 823 (Fla.1976); Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44 (Fla.1974); Lane v. State, 353 So.2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Borders v. State, 312 So.2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Hampton v. State, 304 So.2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Thompson v. State, 300 So.2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Miller v. State, ......