Jaramillo v. State, 60570
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Citation | 417 So.2d 257 |
| Docket Number | No. 60570,60570 |
| Parties | Anibal JARAMILLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 08 July 1982 |
Page 257
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cochran v. State, 67972
...hypothesis of innocence." McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972, 976 n. 12 (Fla.1977) (emphasis supplied). See also Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 257 In applying the standard, "the version of events related by the defense must be believed if the circumstances do not show that version to be ......
-
Jones v. State, 81-2176
...a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.' " Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257, 257 "When a case is based on circumstantial evidence, a special standard of sufficiency of the evidence applies. (citation omitted). This s......
-
Knight v. State, 5D11–2875.
...sufficiency of the evidence challenges in cases “where a conviction is wholly based on circumstantial evidence.” Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257 (Fla.1982).9 Florida is one of only three states [107 So.3d 457]to have taken the “somewhat discordant” position that a Webster instruction shou......
-
Deparvine v. State, SC06-155.
...evidence, a special standard of review applies." Darling v. State, 808 So.2d 145, 155 (Fla.2002) (citing Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257 (Fla. Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless th......