R. Jason de Groot, P.A.
Attorney at Law
335 Debary Avenue
Debary, FL 32713
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).