WILLIAM WALTER MURPHY III
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Circumstantial evidence that appellant and victim exited his apartment, a gunshot was heard, the victim was found fatally shot outside the apartment, and appellant fled and discarded a handgun was sufficient to submit the first-degree murder count to the jury.
[1] Under Florida law, the State is no longer required to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; competent, substantial evidence, even if circumstantial, is suffic…
[2] A trial court objection that testimony is speculative and invades the province of the jury does not preserve for appeal a challenge based on hearsay or improper expert te…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Importantly, the State no longer needs to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Instead, competent, substantial evidence is sufficient, even if circumstantial.”
Court's discussion of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence standard in Florida
William Walter Murphy III was convicted of first-degree murder. Evidence showed that Murphy and the victim exited Murphy's apartment, a loud pop was h…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standard Of Review For Sufficiency Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
No. 1D2025-1476
WILLIAM WALTER MURPHY, III, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. James M. Colaw, Judge.
July 8, 2026
PER CURIAM.
William Walter Murphy, III, appeals his conviction and life sentence for first degree murder. Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on that count. But taken in the light most favorable to the State, evidence at trial showed that Appellant and the victim exited Appellant's apartment, a loud "pop" was heard, and Appellant immediately reentered the apartment without the victim. The victim was discovered on the ground immediately outside Appellant's apartment with a single, ultimately fatal, gunshot wound. Appellant fled the scene and tossed away a handgun immediately before he was detained by law enforcement. This evidence was sufficient to allow the count of first degree murder to be submitted to the jury. See Yinger v. State, 409 So. 3d 201, 204
(Fla. 1st DCA 2025) (citing Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179, 184, 199– 201 (Fla. 2020)) (“Importantly, the State no longer needs to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Instead, competent, substantial evidence is sufficient, even if circumstantial.”).
Appellant's second argument on appeal is that certain testimony by an investigating officer on redirect examination was improper expert testimony and hearsay. At trial, Appellant's counsel objected to the testimony only as speculative and invading the province of the jury. This objection did not preserve the issues now raised on appeal. See Pasha v. State, 225 So. 3d 688, 708 (Fla. 2017) (requiring a contemporaneous, specific objection to preserve a challenge to hearsay evidence on appeal). Even if preserved, the argument would be without merit since the testimony was in response to other hearsay elicited from the same officer by Appellant's counsel on cross examination. See Nock v. State, 256 So. 3d 828, 835 (Fla. 2018) (discussing common law rule of completeness for conversations); Whitfield v. State, 933 So. 2d 1245, 1248-49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (fairness supported admission of hearsay under rule of completeness).
AFFIRMED.
OSTERHAUS, C.J., and LEWIS and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 2020)
- Khalid Ali Pasha v. State, 225 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 2017)