Martin v. State

Appellant was found guilty of second degree murder in the shooting death of Robert Portee. Appellant raises three points on appeal. Two of these were unpreserved, and, in any event, would have resulted in an affirmance had we been able to reach their merits. The sole issue for our consideration is the sufficiency of the evidence to support denial of appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal. Appellant argues that although the circumstantial evidence created a strong suspicion that he killed Robert Portee, it was not sufficient to sustain his conviction for second degree murder. We disagree and affirm appellant's conviction. After the state rested, appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal. To overcome a defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the state has the burden of presenting evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. See Atwater v. State, 626 So.2d 1325, 1328 (Fla. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1046 (1994). Generally, ""[w]here the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence."" State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1989). Whether the evidence fails to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is a question for the jury's determination, and the appellate court will not reverse where there is substantial competent evidence to support the jury verdict. Id. When a motion for judgment of acquittal in such a case has been made, the proper task of the trial Judge is to review the evidence, taking it in the light most favorable to the state, in order to determine whether there is competent evidence from which the jury could infer guilt to the exclusion of all other inferences. Id.at 189.