State v. Lamb, 76-2245
| Decision Date | 26 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2245,76-2245 |
| Citation | 348 So.2d 403 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. William Arthur LAMB, James Hubert Scarberry, Emery Paul Zerick, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Paul M. Rashkind, Asst. State Atty., for appellant.
Jack R. Nageley and Bernard A. Frank, Miami Beach, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
Defendants William Arthur Lamb, James Hubert Scarberry, Emery Paul Zerick and William Lane Dabney were charged in a six-count indictment with various offenses, including conspiracy to receive stolen property. Each defendant filed a motion to dismiss the count charging conspiracy. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the motions of Lamb, Scarberry and Zerick, appellees herein, and denied the motion of defendant Dabney. The State takes this interlocutory appeal, and raises as its sole point that the trial court erred in dismissing the conspiracy count as against the three defendant-appellees.
The nature of proof necessary in a conspiracy case is discussed in Borders v. State, 312 So.2d 247 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), in which the defense alleged that there was insufficient evidence to show that the defendant had agreed with others to commit an illegal act and that the law required proof of such agreement, not just circumstantial evidence. This court found that it was unnecessary to prove a specific conversation in which an agreement was made and that circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy is sufficient for conviction. In affirming the conspiracy conviction this court held:
(citations omitted) Borders v. State, supra, page 248.
In this case, the evidence in the record reflects both specific agreements among the co-conspirators, as well as circumstantial evidence of the conspiracy. The testimony presented before the trial judge shows that five City of Miami Beach police officers agreed among themselves to distribute the proceeds of money stolen by one of the officers from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. State
...1979), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 936, 99 S.Ct. 2061, 60 L.Ed.2d 666 (1979); Pope v. State, 84 Fla. 428, 94 So. 865 (1922); State v. Lamb, 348 So.2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Davis v. State, 275 So.2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), cert. denied, 280 So.2d 684 (Fla.1973). It is a question of fact, as to......
-
Castillo v. State
...that the conspiratorial agreement and intention to commit the unlawful act can be shown by circumstantial evidence, State v. Lamb, 348 So.2d 403, 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Borders v. State, 312 So.2d 247, 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 327 So.2d 31 (Fla.1976), it is also settled that m......
-
State v. Cristodero
...from all the circumstances surrounding and accompanying the act that the common purpose to commit the crime existed. State v. Lamb, 348 So.2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We have also held that it is not necessary to prove a specific conversation in which an agreement was made: A person charged ......
-
McCain v. State, 79-2066
...from all the circumstances surrounding and accompanying the act that the common purpose to commit the crime existed. State v. Lamb, 348 So.2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We have also held that it is not necessary to prove a specific conversation in which an agreement was made: A person charged ......