Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 01 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 65-431,65-431 |
| Citation | 182 So.2d 273 |
| Parties | Charies WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and Phillip A. Hubbart, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before TILLMAN PEARSON, CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
By this appeal, the appellant seeks review of an adverse judgment, conviction and sentence for armed robbery. The only question preserved for review is the sufficiency of the evidence.
The State relies on circumstantial evidence. There was no positive identification made, and we find from the record failure on the part of the State to make a prima facie case of robbery against the defendant, in that it did not meet the tests set forth in Hall v . State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 So. 246; Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53, 163 So. 223; Dedge v. State, 128 Fla. 343, 174 So. 725; Rivers v. State, 140 Fla. 487, 192 So. 190; Hubbard v. State, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 850; Davis v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 629. The evidence failed to establish beyond and to the exclusion of reasonable doubt that the appellant, and no one else, was criminally responsible for the act charged.
Therefore th judgment, conviction, and sentence here under review be and in hereby reversed, with directions to discharge the appellant from the cause.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knight v. State, 73--586
...§ 24 (1955). Hubbard v. State, 73 So.2d 850 (Fla.1954); Rivers v. State, 140 Fla. 487, 192 So. 190 (1939); Wright v. State, 182 So.2d 273 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1966). With respect to finger print evidence in particular, it has been held that when a finger print is found in a place open to the publi......