Lockett v. State, 71--34
| Decision Date | 12 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--34,71--34 |
| Parties | Johnnell LOCKETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Norman J. Kapner, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny, and on this direct appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. We find this point to have merit and reverse.
Eyewitnesses identified appellant as the person who was seated in the driver's seat of an automobile parked on the street adjacent to the Entwistle residence, while an unidentified youth was seen to walk from the side door of that house to the automobile carrying a portable television set and two shot guns or rifles, and to load the same into the parked car. The eyewitnesses having then left the area to report the matter to the police, did not see the car being driven away and, of course, they did not know who had driven the car to the crime scene. The police broadcast a bolo alert and on the basis of the description an officer located the appellant's car some 20 minutes later with appellant driving and a male and two female companions in the car. Other evidence established that the Entwistle home had been broken into that day, with the television and guns apparently stolen.
Despite appellant's alibi, the evidence was certainly sufficient to establish (1) that it was appellant whom the witnesses saw seated in the car parked by the Entwistle home, and (2) that the unidentified youth seen loading the television set and guns into appellant's car was guilty of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit grand larceny. However, upon this evidence, appellant's guilt (of the crime charged) would necessarily depend upon a showing of aiding and abetting under Section 776.011, F.S., F.S.A., which requires proof of his intent to participate. Williams v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 446; Douglas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 653.
Intent may be, and in fact usually is, shown largely by circumstantial evidence, but if the proof of intent rests solely upon circumstantial evidence (as it does here) the proof must be not only consistent with the guilt of the accused, but also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...guilty knowledge and possession in an unlawful possession of marijuana case; delinquency adjudication reversed); Lockett v. State, 262 So.2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (state's evidence deemed sufficient to negate defendant's alibi, but insufficient to establish that defendant had a criminal i......
-
Palmer v. State
...(1973). The Frank and Harris decisions relied on by appellant are thus distinguished, as is the similar decision in Lockett v. State, 262 So.2d 253 (Fla.App.4th, 1972). There was evidence, then, from which the jury could have concluded that appellant possessed the recently stolen property a......
-
Davis v. State
...aider or abetter can be established by circumstantial evidence. Williams v. State, 206 So.2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Lockett v. State, 262 So.2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Rosson v. State, 319 So.2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Such evidence, however, must meet the test first set forth above; that......
-
J.W. v. State, 84-469
...v. State, 351 So.2d 972 (Fla.1977); Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629 (Fla.1956); Pack v. State, 381 So.2d at 1200; Lockett v. State, 262 So.2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). This the state has not The state has not excluded the reasonable hypothesis that the appellant was merely a witness to the crim......