Parish v. State
| Decision Date | 13 November 1929 |
| Parties | PARISH et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Amos Lewis, Judge.
James Parish and others were convicted of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit larceny of goods of the value of more than $50, a felony, and they bring error.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Circumstances relied on for conviction must be inconsistent with innocence and lead to reasonable and moral certainty that accused and no other committed offense. When circumstantial evidence is relied upon for conviction in a criminal case, the circumstances, when taken together, must be of a conclusive nature and tendency, leading on the whole to a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused, and no one else, committed the offense. It is not sufficient that the facts create a strong probability of, and be consistent with, guilt; they must be inconsistent with innocence.
Circumstantial evidence does not amount of proof of guilt if equally consistent with other rational conclusion than guilt. If the facts in proof are equally consistent with some other rational conclusion than that of guilt, or if the evidence leaves it indifferent which of several hypotheses is true, or merely establishes some finite probability in favor of one hyopthesis rather than another, such evidence cannot amount to proof, however great the probability may be.
Circumstantial evidence held to sustain conviction for breaking and entering building to commit larceny of goods. Evidence examined, and found not to satisfy the rule as to the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to support a conviction.
Thos. E. Walker, of Marianna, for plaintiffs in error.
Fred H Davis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
In this case the defendants were convicted of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony, to wit, with intent to commit larceny of goods of the value of more than $50. The strongest statement of the case which may be obtained from the evidence is that the office building belonging to one H C. Richards was broken into from the rear; that the front door was opened and an iron safe containing money and securities of the value of $1,200 was moved from inside of the building through the front door on to the front porch; that the safe was not opened, all securities were intact, and the safe left on the front porch of the building; that the defendants were in the town of Altha where the building was located during the early part of the night, and were said to have been there by some witnesses as late as 11:30 o'clock p. m.; that they were riding in an automobile roadster with a rumble seat; that the roadster was equipped with three Michelin tires and one Oldfield tire; that tracks of an automobile equipped with such tires were found near the porch of the building. It cannot be definitely ascertained whether the car with such tires had been backed up to the building or had stood sidewise to the building. The defendants were seen in a car standing sidewise to the building about 8:30 o'clock at night. The last person who saw the building that night was a witness who testified that he saw the building at 2 o'clock in the night and did not see any safe on the front porch. It is further shown that a car like the one the defendants were in was in Altha as late as 2 o'clock that night. There is evidence that the defendants at first denied that they were in Altha that night. There is no other circumstance relied upon showing or tending to show that the defendants entered the building or that they broke into the building for any purpose whatever.
On the other hand, the defendants and the wife of one of the defendants testified that they were in Altha for a short time, probably between 8 and 9 o'clock p. m.; that they went to Blountstown and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...effort to extricate the victim from the automobile thereafter, not properly negated; manslaughter conviction reversed); Parish v. State, 98 Fla. 877, 124 So. 444 (1929) (state's evidence deemed insufficient to link defendants to a burglary; defendants' trial testimony and other evidence est......
-
Diecidue v. State, 30913
...in the light of our opinions and decisions in Allen v. State, Fla., 62 So.2d 70; Gustine v. State, 86 Fla. 24, 97 So. 207; Parish v. State, 98 Fla. 877, 124 So. 444, and the opinion and decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in the case of Harrison v. State, Fla.App., 104......
-
Mccall v. State
... ... homicide did commit the same, and that no one else ... committed the offense. It is not sufficient that the facts ... create a strong probability of, and be consistent with, ... guilt. They must be inconsistent with innocence. Parish ... v. State, 98 Fla. 877, 124 So. 444; Cannon v ... State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. 360; Hall v ... State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 So. 246; Asher v ... State, 90 Fla. 75, 105 So. 140; Lee v. State, ... 96 Fla. 59, 117 So. 699; Davis v. State, 90 Fla ... 816, 107 So. 245; Smith v. State, ... ...
-
Victor v. State
... ... the accused and no one else committed the offense charged, ... such evidence will sustain a conviction. Hall v ... State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 So. 246; Cannon v ... State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. 360; Lee v. State, ... 96 Fla. 59, 117 So. 699; Whiting v. State, 97 Fla ... 693, 122 So. 2; Parish v. State, 98 Fla. 877, 124 ... So. 444; Simmons v. State, 99 Fla. 1216, 128 So ... 486. And a party moving for a directed verdict admits facts ... in evidence adduced and every conclusion favorable to his ... adversary fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom. E ... E. Alley Co. v. Ball, ... ...