Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

1,099 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Dicks v. State
  46 Fla. L. Weekly S285· Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-11-24 ·cited 1×
• Teltschik v. State
  257 So. 3d 610· Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-10-24 ·cited 1×
  To prove third-degree grand theft, the State must establish the value of stolen property beyond a reasonable doubt, and such value cannot be proven through incomplete evidence (such as original cost without depreciation testimony) or by invoking common sense or juror life experie
• George v. State
  251 So. 3d 262· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-07-05 ·cited 1×
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial based on prosecutor voir dire statements, as any error was harmless where the court sustained objections and gave curative instructions. Although the trial court erred by precluding cros
• Santos v. State
  254 So. 3d 437· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-06-27 ·cited 1×
  The trial court did not err in denying suppression of the third custodial interview because any violation in failing to inform the defendant that an attorney was attempting to invoke his right to remain silent was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the defendant's pri
• Z. E. v. State
  241 So. 3d 979· Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-04-06 ·cited 1×
  A trial court acting as fact-finder in a criminal case may disbelieve a witness's testimony even if that testimony is unrefuted and even if the witness is the sole witness presented.
• Edge-Gougen v. State
  182 So. 3d 730· Fla. 1st DCA· 2015-12-28 ·cited 1×
  Amanda Edge-Gougen appealed her conviction for direct criminal contempt after appearing at a court hearing with a measured blood alcohol level of .082-.087 g/100ml. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court lacked authority to order a breathalyzer
• Dupree v. State
  137 So. 3d 444· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-03-12 ·cited 1×
  Sean Dupree appeals his jury convictions for false imprisonment, battery, and aggravated assault, challenging the special interrogatory verdict form regarding firearm possession and the trial court's restitution order entered after notice of appeal. The Fourth District affirms th
• Moyers v. State
  127 So. 3d 827· Fla. 2d DCA· 2013-11-27 ·cited 1×
  Dave Moyers appealed two orders finding him in indirect criminal contempt for failing to comply with truancy orders requiring his daughter's school attendance. The court reversed both orders, finding that the proceedings suffered from procedural deficiencies identified in precede
• Basilio Corrales v. State
  84 So. 3d 406· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-03-29 ·cited 1×
  Basilio Corrales was convicted of failing to appear at a scheduled court hearing, but the Florida appellate court reversed because the state failed to prove he willfully failed to appear. The court held that notice to a defendant's attorney alone is insufficient to establish the
• Mitchell v. State
  147 So. 3d 1· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-03-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the record was insufficient to determine if the Apprendi/Blakely error was harmless and therefore reversed the denial of the motion to correct illegal sentence.
• West v. State
  82 So. 3d 987· Fla. 1st DCA· 2011-08-15 ·cited 1×
  Jason West was convicted of burglary and sentenced as a habitual felony offender to 30 years in prison. On appeal, West challenged both his habitual felony offender sentence under Apprendi v. New Jersey and the imposition of a $2,500 public defender's fee. The court affirmed the
• Alfred v. State
  935 So. 2d 72· Fla. 3d DCA· 2006-08-02 ·cited 1×
  Jerry Neil Alfred appeals his conviction for second degree murder with a firearm. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, rejecting Alfred's arguments regarding witness testimony, cross-examination limitations, and curative jury instructions.
• Bridges v. Vasquez
  151 F. Supp. 2d 1353· N.D. Fla.· 2001-07-06 ·cited 1×
  A federal defendant cannot use 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge a conviction based on the Apprendi rule if 28 U.S.C. § 2255 will provide an adequate and effective remedy in due course.
• In the Interest of D.S. and J.V.
  652 So. 2d 892· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-03-15 ·cited 1×
• United States v. San Pedro
  781 F. Supp. 761· S.D. Fla.· 1991-12-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment should be granted because the government breached the plea agreement by prosecuting him after he cooperated and provided truthful testimony.
• Miller v. State
  597 So. 2d 767· Fla.· 1991-09-26 ·cited 1×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that blood-alcohol test results obtained a significant time after a defendant is stopped for suspected DUI are admissible evidence, even when the state cannot establish the defendant's blood-alcohol level at the time of driving. The court rejected a
• Contella v. Contella
  557 So. 2d 880· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-02-01 ·cited 1×
  Leonard Contella petitioned for habeas corpus after being held in criminal contempt for willfully violating a spousal support order and divesting himself of assets. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's criminal contempt finding and upheld the jail sentenc
• In re Neville J. Reehlman, M.D.
  763 F.2d 670· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-04 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the evidence supported a finding of criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the imposed fines were not excessive.
• Holmes v. State
  272 So. 2d 149· Fla.· 1973-01-15 ·cited 1×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the statute prohibiting armed trespass on a ranch with intent to commit larceny or depredation, but found the evidence insufficient to convict Holmes under that specific statute. The Court reversed and remanded for conviction und
• Sturgis v. State
  233 So. 2d 166· Fla. 4th DCA· 1970-03-04 ·cited 1×
  Fred Willie Sturgis was convicted of rape along with three co-defendants. The appellate court reversed because co-defendants' confessions implicating Sturgis were admitted at trial despite jury instructions to disregard them, and this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable do
• Smith v. State
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2026-07-17
  When determining whether a crime qualifies as a sexually violent offense under section 394.912(9)(h) of the Jimmy Ryce Act, the trial court must apply the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, not the clear and convincing evidence standard. Summary judgment is an appropriate proced
• Young v. State
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2026-07-10
  The prohibition against impermissible stacking of inferences remains valid in Florida as a separate evidentiary principle distinct from the special circumstantial evidence standard eliminated in Bush v. State. A factfinder may draw reasonable inferences from evidence but cannot d
• Sanchez v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-07-01
  Appellate counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a claim that would not have changed the result, and any error in failing to submit habitual felony offender factors to a jury constitutes harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Devonte Rodney Baker v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2026-04-29
  The State's evidence was insufficient to prove Baker's identity as the perpetrator of the first tire-slashing incident based solely on a victim's observation of a silhouette and a hunch. Additionally, absent any identification of the object used to slash the tires, the State fail
• Walton v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2026-04-22
  When reviewing the legal sufficiency of evidence in a criminal conviction, an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the existence of each element of the crime beyond a reason
• Trevoris Finley v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2026-02-25
  Trevoris Finley appeals his convictions for multiple robberies and murders. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions, finding competent and substantial evidence supported the murder convictions despite Finley's argument that the evidence was merely circumstant
• Anady v. State
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2025-12-23
  The Constitution requires that a jury be instructed that the State must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and failure to do so is structural error; however, neither instruction on the presumption of innocence nor a definition of reasonable doubt is constituti
• Gunsby v. State
  Fla. 6th DCA· 2025-08-15
  A trial court properly denies a motion for judgment of acquittal in a misuse of 911 case when sufficient evidence exists from which a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly used 911 for a purpose other than obtaining public safety assistance.
• Camden James Stukins v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2025-08-13
  A lay witness who did not personally observe an event may not testify to an opinion about that event unless the opinion is based on the witness's personal perceptions and does not require special knowledge, skill, experience, or training. The lead detective's lay opinion that the
• Moises Abraham Jaime v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-07-23
  There was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the existence of all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Ortiz v. State
  Fla. 6th DCA· 2025-07-18
  A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense if there is any evidence to support it, regardless of how weak or flimsy, and the trial court may not condition the instruction on the defendant affirmatively conceding that elements of the crime were established. A de
• Burgos v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-05-28
  The trial court's conviction was affirmed because a rational trier of fact could find all elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt, jury instructions were within the trial court's discretion, and any prosecutorial comments were not properly preserved for review.
• Harris v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-01-29
  Mark Harris was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, but the appellate court reversed because the trial court failed to conduct a proper colloquy with Harris regarding his stipulation to prior felony status and the State presented no evidence of the prior co
• Montgomery v. State
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2024-10-23
  Aaron James Montgomery appealed his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident with property damage, arguing the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Richardson hearing after he raised a possible discovery violation. The appellate court agreed that the trial court's inq
• McDermott v. State
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2024-09-13
  Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal the trial court's error in not informing the jury of its right to request a read-back of testimony in response to a request for transcripts. The State failed to establish that this error was harmless beyond a
• Ramirez v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2024-08-07
  The failure to include Standard Jury Instruction 3.7 regarding reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence in the final jury charge constitutes fundamental error requiring reversal and a new trial, even when the trial court provided similar instructions during voir dire and
• State v. Boutiette
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2024-06-28
  Florida appeals a trial court's order granting John Boutiette self-defense immunity on aggravated battery convictions despite a jury verdict of guilty. The appellate court reverses, holding that the jury's guilty verdict (beyond reasonable doubt) cures the trial court's earlier a
• Rivera v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-06-12
  The trial court's judgment is affirmed under harmless error analysis, which requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any error did not contribute to the verdict.
• Reynolds v. State of Fla. & Dep't of Child. & Families
  Fla. 5th DCA· 2024-05-02
  A defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity may be involuntarily committed to DCF if the defendant is mentally ill and, because of that illness, is manifestly dangerous to himself or others. The court affirmed the trial court's commitment order where evidence showed Reynol
• Vincent v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2023-08-02
  The rape shield statute applies only to consensual sexual activity and not nonconsensual activity, so the trial court erred in applying it to preclude evidence that someone other than the defendant raped the victim, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Ryland v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2023-04-12
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, holding that a judge, not a jury, can determine a defendant's prison release date for sentencing enhancement under Florida's prison releasee reoffender statute. This determination is considered a ministerial act d
• Ward v. Secretary, DOC
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-10-18
  The court held that the state court's adjudication of the petitioner's claims did not result in a decision contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts.
• Craft v. C.A. No. K20M-10-034 NEP Jana Simpler
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2022-10-14
  The Delaware Supreme Court held that probable cause findings made by the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) qualify as "convictions" under the Uniform Commercial Driver License Act (UCDLA). Consequently, two such findings, even when entered by default, are sufficient grounds for th
• Johnstone v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2022-09-30
• McKenzie v. State
  333 So. 3d 1098· Fla.· 2022-02-10
  The trial court properly denied McKenzie's motion for an interrogatory penalty phase verdict requiring the jury to specify facts supporting aggravating factors, as the required jury finding is only the unanimous finding of the existence of one or more aggravating factors proven b
• Bell v. State
  Fla.· 2022-02-03
  Jesse Bell was convicted of first-degree murder for killing inmate Donald Eastwood while incarcerated and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence, rejecting arguments that the trial court failed to properly investigate mitigation, improp
• Toiran v. State
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-11-17
  A trial court's error in applying an incorrect burden of proof at a Stand Your Ground immunity hearing is harmless when the jury convicts the defendant at trial by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as the trial burden is heavier than the pretrial burden. The defendant is not entit
• Smith v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Manatee County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-09-29
  Federal habeas relief is available only for constitutional violations, not state law errors, and claims not properly presented to state courts are procedurally barred unless cause and prejudice or manifest injustice is shown.
• Mansell v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-09-23
  Lwane Mansell, a Florida prisoner convicted of luring/enticing a child and lewd/lascivious conduct against an 11-year-old, filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction, raising claims of prosecutorial misconduct, insufficient evidence, and ineffective assista
• Whitfield v. State
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2021-09-15
  Standard-of-proof defects in a Stand-Your-Ground immunity hearing are cured when a defendant proceeds to trial and is convicted by a jury under the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.