Dejesus v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Garcia v. State

    No. 3D15-2815 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May. 1, 2019)

    While certainly suspicious, these circumstances do not serve to establish any criminal act by Mr. Garcia with respect to Ms. Macriello's apparent death. See DeJesus v.State, 225 So. 3d 285, 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (concluding that cell site data of "Appellant's location near the scene of the crime around the time of the burglary" served to "furnish[] only a suspicion that Appellant was complicit in the charged crimes" and, therefore, was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence). Aside from the impermissible pyramiding of assumptions and inferences drawn from the purely circumstantial evidence discussed herein, the State presented no direct evidence (physical or testimony) at trial connecting Mr. Garcia to Ms. Macriello's apparent death.

  2. Alvarez v. State

    238 So. 3d 283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    As this Court has said, "[e]vidence which furnishes nothing more than a suspicion that the defendant committed the crime is not sufficient to uphold a conviction." DeJesus v. State , 225 So.3d 285, 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting Garcia v. State , 899 So.2d 447, 449 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ).In DeJesus , we recently recognized there can be persuasive strength from cumulative evidence, but stressed the importance of not allowing strong cumulative evidence to lead to a misapplication of the special standard of review.