Criminal Court: CRIMINAL LAW – Jury Trial/Evidence – Sufficiency of evidence- Venue- Identification
– substantial, competent evidence was presented to support the findings of
magistrate of defendant’s identification – venue is sufficiently proved is
jury can reasonable infer from the evidence that the crime was committed in
the alleged jurisdiction. Judgment
and Sentence affirmed. Zomekka v. State, No. 03-19 (
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
THE STATE OF
vs. CASE NO.: 02-08059CFANO
Opinion filed: ______________
from Order of
Attorney for Appellee
ORDER AND OPINION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the defendant’s appeal from the traffic court order imposing fines and costs in the amount of $110.00. After reviewing the briefs and record, this Court affirms the traffic court’s decision.
The defendant appeals the finding of guilt arguing that there was no identification of the defendant as the person that committed the traffic infraction and that there was insufficient proof to establish venue.
The standard of review for a decision of law is de novo review. Appellate courts must construe all the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court’s rulings. Hines v. State, 737 So.2d 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
“The prosecution must prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt just as they would be required to prove the various elements of the offense charged.” Ross v. State, 190 So.2d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). In this case, Officer Horinaopoulos with the St. Petersburg Beach Police Department referred to the defendant on several occasions and testified that he observed the defendant driving the taxicab. Additionally, there was testimony that the defendant was identified by his driver’s license. There was sufficient competent evidence to support the finding by the magistrate that the defendant was identified beyond a reasonable doubt.
defendant also argues that the witnesses failed to establish venue. The allegation in the charging document that
the offense occurred within a named county is a material allegation of the
charge which must be proved by the State.
Smith v. State, 29
there was no direct testimony that the offense occurred in
Accordingly, this Court finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the magistrate’s finding of guilt. It is therefore
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the traffic court’s order imposing $110.00 in fines and costs is affirmed.
AND ORDERED in Chambers, at
JOHN A. SCHAEFER
W. DOUGLAS BAIRD
NANCY MOATE LEY
Copies furnished to
Magistrate Charles Svoboda