Opinion ID: 4156730
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: White argues that the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to support his first-degree murder conviction. “In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, the question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could have found the existence of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Simmons v. State, 934 So. 2d 1100, 1111 (Fla. 2006) (quoting Bradley v. State, 787 So. 2d 732, 738 (Fla. 2001)). Here, where the evidence presented by the State is wholly circumstantial, the Court “must determine not only whether the State has proven the ‘elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt,’ but also whether the record contains ‘competent substantial evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of events.’ ” 2. White filed numerous pretrial motions, including one to declare Florida’s death penalty unconstitutional pursuant to Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). - 13 - Hodgkins v. State, 175 So. 3d 741, 751 (Fla. 2015) (quoting Johnston v. State, 863 So. 2d 271, 283 (Fla. 2003)). White argues the State did not present a single piece of evidence that clearly negates White’s hypothesis of innocence that someone else committed the crime and that he merely found the victim after she was already deceased. He asserts that this case is analogous to Hodgkins, where the Court reversed Hodgkins’ murder conviction when the circumstantial evidence of Hodgkins’ DNA being under the victim’s fingernails was insufficient to overcome Hodgkins’ reasonable hypothesis of innocence that someone else killed the victim. 175 So. 3d at 750. The defense’s theory of events is that White was at the murder scene, but, as he testified at trial, only after the victim was already deceased. White fled and did not call the police because he knew he would be the prime suspect and did not trust the police. White testified that when he stole the victim’s phone, he saw “angry conversations” with other men she had been dating, and the defense offered the theory that perhaps when the victim left her house that morning she was going to meet another man, who killed her. The State has produced competent, substantial evidence that is inconsistent with White’s theory of events. The State presented evidence that White went to the victim’s home around two a.m. on the date of the offense. At her home, White got in an altercation with the victim and stole her cell phone. The victim left the - 14 - home with her son’s phone, traveling towards White’s residence in Orlando, after emphasizing to the 911 operator how important it was that she have her phone and that she needed to get it back. Around three a.m., White spoke with the victim in a call that lasted more than nine minutes and then began traveling towards the Miami Subs location, which would ultimately be the crime scene. Further, White admitted to being at the crime scene. White’s palm print was found in the victim’s blood on a window sill directly above the victim’s head. White always carried a pocket knife with him, which the police could not find after arresting him. Upon entering White’s home to interview him, a female detective noticed a bottle of bleach on the counter in the bathroom and smelled the odor of bleach coming from the bathroom. White consistently denied being at the crime scene to police during his interview, and did not admit he was there until trial. Finally, White and the victim had a history of violence in their relationship. Taken together, this circumstantial evidence rebuts White’s presumption that the victim was murdered by an angry lover. There was simply no evidence adduced at trial, other than White’s testimony, that he saw “angry conversations” on the victim’s phone that would tend to corroborate White’s theory of the murder. By contrast, the State presented, as White characterizes it, a “large volume” of circumstantial evidence that points to White as the murderer, and in doing so, rebuts his theory. The relationship between White and the victim, the history of - 15 - violence, the altercation within hours of the victim’s death, and the cell phone records showing calls between White and the victim just minutes before her death all indicate that it was White, and not some other angry lover, who murdered the victim. Hodgkins is distinguishable from this case. In Hodgkins, this Court found that the evidence under the victim’s fingernails pointed only to the fact that the defendant had been with the victim at some point before she was murdered. 175 So. 3d at 748. There was, however, no other evidence to put the defendant at the crime scene around the time of victim’s death or any evidence of animosity between the defendant and the victim. Id. at 748-49. By contrast, in this case, there was a pattern of previous violence between White and the victim. Further, White admits to being at the crime scene in close proximity to the time when the victim was killed, which is supported by the fact that his palm print was found in her blood directly above her head. Thus, this case is distinguishable from the facts in Hodgkins.