Hill v. State
| Decision Date | 13 June 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D06-1044.,4D06-1044. |
| Citation | 958 So.2d 549 |
| Parties | Andre HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Dea Abramschmitt, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laura Fisher Zibura, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Andre Hill appeals his jury conviction for robbery with a firearm and concomitant life sentence, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.
The charges arose from an armed robbery of a man on a bicycle. The victim identified Hill's cousin as the man who stole his money at gunpoint and identified Hill as the driver of the getaway car. Hill contends that the state's evidence is entirely circumstantial and that there is no evidence to overcome his explanation for his conduct, which, he argues, is a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187, 189 (Fla.1989).
Shortly after the robbery, Officer Gilroy was searching for the described vehicle when he observed a car matching the description with two males in the front seat. The police car and the suspects' car were traveling in opposite directions; the driver accelerated when he realized he was looking at a law enforcement officer. A chase began. Gilroy radioed the investigating officer with a description and got confirmation that the car matched the one described by the victim. The officer activated his lights in an effort to stop the speeding suspects, but they did not stop. Eventually, the car came to a dead end and a fence, forcing it to halt. Both occupants exited the passenger side; the passenger immediately escaped through a gap in the fence. Gilroy testified that Hill next exited the vehicle with his hands raised before he took off running through the same gap in the fence.
Hill admitted that he was the driver of the car on the night of the robbery and described watching his cousin, the co-defendant, pull out a gun while robbing the victim. He told the jury that he had stopped the car at his cousin's behest. Hill stated that he did not get out of the car,1 remaining in the car about twenty feet away, unable to hear the conversation because the windows were closed. Hill claimed that he did not know what his cousin was going to do.
The cousin got back into the car and directed Hill to "mash the gas" and take off. Questioned about his elusive maneuvers fleeing from police, Hill said that he thought there must have been an arrest warrant out for him because of an unpaid bill with a bondsman who had bonded him out on a misdemeanor charge just days before the incident, and he was trying to avoid arrest. Hill contends that he was surprised by his cousin's actions and had done nothing to encourage, incite, or participate in the robbery. The defense rested its case and renewed its motion for judgment of acquittal.
Hill's defense theory was that he could not be held responsible as a principal for his cousin's actions because there was no proof that he had done anything beyond drive the car, and only circumstantial evidence of his intent.
The day of sentencing, Hill's attorney renewed the motion for judgment of acquittal, on the same grounds as argued at trial, claiming the state failed to provide evidence inconsistent with Hill's hypothesis of innocence.
Our review of the motion for judgment of acquittal is de novo. Smith v. State, 949 So.2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Hill was tried and convicted as a principal to the robbery. "In order to be guilty as a principal for a crime physically committed by another, one must intend that the crime be committed and do some act to assist the other person in actually committing the crime." Staten v. State, 519 So.2d 622, 624 (Fla.1988). Hill admitted driving the car, and there is direct evidence of his actions to assist. However, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...to help the robbers escape’ ... [is] a principal" (citing Enmund v. State , 399 So. 2d 1362, 1370 (Fla. 1981) )); Hill v. State , 958 So. 2d 549, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (affirming the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon an insufficiency of the evidence argument where th......
-
Theophile v. State
...of all other inferences. That view of the evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the state.’ ” Hill v. State, 958 So.2d 549, 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citations omitted). An appellate court reviews the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo, because the issue is ......
-
A.B. v. State
...as well as being indicative of criminal knowledge” must be resolved in favor of the accused). The State relies on Hill v. State, 958 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), but we find it easily distinguishable. There, the defendant witnessed his cousin commit a robbery, then assisted commission of ......
- Cann v. State, 4D05-4710.
-
The trial (conduct of trial, jury instructions, verdict)
...chase, and ran when the case stopped. Held: The circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a robbery conviction. Hill v. State, 958 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) When a witness sees the defendant shoot the victim, but the witness does not see a gun and no gun is found, the case is no......