Kenneth Karlston Newsome v. State of Florida
199 So. 3d 510
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On June 10, 2014, 71-year-old taxi driver Marcel Jean‑Gilles was stabbed, robbed, and left with life‑threatening wounds after picking up two male passengers; he could not identify them.
- Witness heard a crash and saw three men run from the scene; police arrived about ten minutes later and found no one nearby.
- Investigators recovered a brown hat from the taxi; Appellant’s DNA matched DNA from the hat and his fingerprint was found on the rear passenger door handle.
- At trial Appellant denied involvement, testified he briefly entered the running taxi to look for drugs, and said he left his hat inside by mistake before leaving within one to two minutes.
- Defense moved for judgment of acquittal at close of the State’s case and renewed it after presenting Appellant’s testimony; both motions were boilerplate and did not identify specific elements or argue circumstantial‑evidence standards.
- The jury convicted Appellant of attempted first‑degree murder, kidnapping, and armed robbery; he received life for attempted murder and consecutive 40‑year terms for the other counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying motion for judgment of acquittal | State: evidence (DNA, fingerprint, hat, circumstances) was sufficient to sustain convictions | Karlston: evidence legally insufficient; alternatively, case was wholly circumstantial and State failed to disprove his innocent explanation | Court: denial affirmed — defendant failed to preserve both sufficiency and circumstantial‑evidence arguments because counsel made only a boilerplate JOA |
Key Cases Cited
- Tibbs v. State, 397 So. 2d 1120 (1981) (distinguishes weight v. legal sufficiency of evidence)
- Hodgkins v. State, 175 So. 3d 741 (2015) (explains special sufficiency standard for wholly circumstantial evidence cases)
- Thorp v. State, 777 So. 2d 385 (2000) (describes circumstantial‑evidence review standard)
- Dausch v. State, 141 So. 3d 513 (2014) (same)
- Knight v. State, 186 So. 3d 1005 (2016) (upholds use of circumstantial‑evidence standard on JOA review)
- Woods v. State, 733 So. 2d 980 (1999) (issues must be presented below with sufficient specificity to preserve appellate review)
- Romero v. State, 901 So. 2d 260 (2005) (a boilerplate JOA asserting only failure to present a prima facie case is insufficient to preserve specific sufficiency arguments)