5D03-1978 Romulus Brinkley v. State

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D03-1978

Case Date: 05/10/2004

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2004

ROMULUS BRINKLEY, JR., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion Filed May 14, 2004 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, John H. Adams, Judge. Joerg F. Jaeger of Jaeger and Blankner, Orlando, for Appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. EDWARDS-STEPHENS, S., Associate Judge. The defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence for manslaughter by culpable negligence with a firearm. This case involves a tragic incident in which the defendant shot and killed his live-in partner's adult daughter, thinking she was a burglar. The defendant raises as his point on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because the State failed to produce competent evidence Case No. 5D03-1978

contradicting his reasonable hypothesis of innocence.1 Because we conclude the State demonstrated a prima facie case, we affirm. The defendant asserts that the standard of proof in ruling on a motion to dismiss where the State's case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence requires that the evidence not only be consistent with the defendant's guilt, but also must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The defendant argues that the State failed in its burden of presenting competent evidence inconsistent with his reasonable belief that he was acting out of fear for his life. This Court has previously held that in order to withstand a motion to dismiss, the State need only demonstrate a prima facie case. State v. Patel, 453 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The State is not obligated to produce evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction. State v. Bonebright, 742 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Furthermore, if the State's evidence is all circumstantial, whether it excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence may only be decided at trial, after all the evidence has been presented. State v. Bonebright; State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In determining whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, this Court must review the particular facts presented as they relate to the elements of the criminal charge. The defendant was charged with manslaughter by culpable negligence with a firearm.

Download 5D03-1978 Romulus Brinkley v. State.pdf