Peacock v. State, BL-181
| Decision Date | 25 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BL-181,BL-181 |
| Citation | 498 So.2d 545,11 Fla. L. Weekly 2462 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2462 Harold PEACOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James A. Johnston, Pensacola, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Kurt L. Barch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Peacock appeals from a conviction of violation of probation by solicitation to commit arson. He alleges that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.
In June 1984, Peacock was placed on probation after pleading guilty to two counts of grand theft. In September 1985, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed, alleging that Peacock had solicited another man, Cook, to commit arson by burning Peacock's house trailer. Cook, who had informed state insurance fraud investigators that Peacock might be involved in such fraud, had agreed to record any telephone conversations he might have with Peacock. During a conversation recorded in early March 1985, Peacock asked Cook to "take care of the trailer in smoke." In the same conversation, Peacock indicated that he first needed to acquire more insurance and asked Cook to contact him again.
In a second exchange later in March, Peacock told Cook that definite plans had to be postponed until 20 March because of the recently-purchased insurance. Peacock thereafter met with a man named Sims and gave him a key to the trailer to give to Cook. Cook picked up the key, but a week or so later Peacock contacted Sims again and told him to call Cook and cancel the job until the trailer could be moved to Alabama.
During the bench trial of March 1986, Peacock moved for judgment of acquittal alleging that the foregoing evidence was insufficient to show a decision to proceed with the arson and further that his cancellation of the job showed a renunciation of the crime sufficient to be a complete defense thereto. The trial judge denied the motion and found Peacock guilty of violation of probation.
Section 777.04(2), Florida Statutes, provides that
[w]hoever solicits another to commit an offense prohibited by law and in the course of such solicitation commands, encourages, hires, or requests another person to engage in specifc conduct which would constitute such offense ... commits the offense of criminal solicitation....
Section 777.04(5)(b) establishes as a defense to the crime of solicitation that
under circumstances manifesting a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, 87-1599
...every conclusion favorable to the adverse party that the jury might fairly and reasonably infer from the evidence. Peacock v. State, 498 So.2d 545, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Ambrister v. State, 462 So.2d 43, 45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 467 So.2d 1000 (Fla.1985). The test ......
-
State v. Williams, 98-2055.
...has presented competent evidence to establish every element of the crime, then a judgment of acquittal is improper. Peacock v. State, 498 So.2d 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The following rule is Generally, on a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court should not grant the motion unless, when......
-
Gant v. State, 93-2440
...a judgment of acquittal where the state has introduced competent evidence to support every element of the crime. Peacock v. State, 498 So.2d 545, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). When moving for a judgment of acquittal, the defendant admits the facts stated, the evidence adduced, and every reasonab......
-
L.O v. State Of Fla.
...has brought forth competent evidence to support every element of the crime, a judgment of acquittal is not proper." Peacock v. State, 498 So. 2d 545, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). "Further, in moving for a judgment of acquittal, the defendant admits not only the facts stated and the evidence add......