The
law is well settled in Florida that in a criminal trial when the
evidence presented by the State is wholly circumstantial, the state
must present evidence which contradicts every reasonable hypothesis
of innocence in order to sustain a conviction. If the state does not
do this a motion for judgment of acquittal must be granted. All too
often the state utilizes and relies upon impermissibly stacked
inferences against an accused to suggest guilt. For instance, in a
trial for driving under the influence of alcohol, because each and
every police officer in the state has taken a special course, the
evidence presented will be that the defendant's eyes were bloodshot
or glassy, the speech was slurred, the gait was staggered and there
was a strong odor of alcohol emanating from the defendant or the
defendant's breath. These rotely memorized matters are commonly
written into every police report throughout the state, often without
regard to the actual truth. Invariably, the defendant failed to
maintain a single lane while driving or there can be any one of a
host of other reasons for a traffic stop. Once the stop is made, the
officer subjectively determines the factors which infer guilt from a
litany of seemingly objective observations. It is not a scientific
process, but it will appear to be. It is not a seeking of the truth,
but the necessary foundation to a finding of guilt. But our example
is just one and the context applies to all criminal prosecutions
which employ only circumstantial evidence. The distinction between
direct evidence and that which is circumstantial is at the heart of
the problem. Only testimony from someone who actually witnessed our
defendant consume alcohol and then get behind the wheel and drive
would suffice in this example. Although the observations of our
officer appear to be direct, they are not. Slurred speech, bloodshot
eyes, a staggered gait, and an odor of alcohol are direct evidence of
what the officer observed, but these are nothing more than the proof
of a chain of circumstances pointing to the commission of the
offense, the classic explanation of circumstantial evidence.
"Evidence
which furnishes nothing stronger than a suspicion, even though it
would tend to justify the suspicion that the defendant committed the
crime, it is not sufficient to sustain conviction. It is the actual
exclusion of the hypothesis of innocence which clothes circumstantial
evidence with the force of proof sufficient to convict.
Circumstantial evidence which leaves uncertain several hypotheses,
any one of which may be sound and some of which maybe entirely
consistent with innocence, is not adequate to sustain a verdict of
guilt. Even though the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to
suggest a probability of guilt, it is not thereby adequate to support
a conviction if it is likewise consistent with a reasonable
hypothesis of innocence." Davis
v. State,
90
So.2d 629, 631-32 (Fla. 1956).
Our
analysis must turn to this defendant, although not required to prove
or disprove any fact and the constitutional right to remain silent is
absolute, the explanation is that at 2:00 a.m., after performing in
a bar for a total of six hours and having been up since 6:00 a.m. the
preceding morning, the defendant was exhausted when stopped by the
officer. Surely, this negates each and every circumstance which lead
the officer to suspect a crime. Fortunately, this defendant refuses
all sobriety tests. So, there is no evidence except the officers
testimony.
Tell me what you think. Should the court grant a motion
for judgment of acquittal, or should the defendant be convicted?
