Nelson v. StateNelson v. State
Norris Nelson appeals his conviction and sentence for four counts of aggravated assault
On March 4, 1997, Detectives Garcia and Aleman were driving in an unmarked vehicle when Garcia saw Nelson enter a vehicle with a rifle in his hand. Garcia followed Nelson, mounted a blue police light on the dashboard of the unmarked police vehicle, and tried unsuccessfully to have thе suspect vehicle pull over. At one point, Nelson‘s vehicle stopped, Nelson exited the vehicle with a rifle in his hand, and took off running. The detectives attempted to follow Nelson on foot. They were dressed in plainclothes, but Detective Aleman was wearing a T-shirt with a printed police badge on the front and “Police” printеd in large letters on the back. At this point, Nelson stopped, turned around, aimed his rifle tоward the detectives, and attempted to fire at them. While these detectives tоok cover, Nelson fled toward Detectives Dominguez and Miller, who had responded to the radio transmission alert. Dominguez and Miller were also wearing plainclothes, and their unmarked vehicle had its blue police light flashing on the vehicle‘s dashboard. Whеn Dominguez and Miller spotted Nelson, Nelson pointed his rifle at them. Shortly thereafter, Nеlson was apprehended after he boarded a bus. During the chase, Nelson discarded the rifle.
Nelson moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that he knew the detectives were police officers. The court denied the motion, holding that this was a jury question. We agree.
The rule for reviewing a mоtion for judgment of acquittal was established in Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44 (Fla.1974), which stated that:
[C]ourts should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the opposite party can be sustained under the law.
Id. at 45. In circumstantial evidenсe cases, “a judgment of acquittal is appropriate if the State fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.” Barwick v. State, 660 So.2d 685, 694 (Fla. 1995). Therefore, at the outset, “the trial judge must first determine there is competent evidence from which the jury could infer guilt to the exclusion of all other inferences.” Id. After the judge determines, as a matter of law, whether such competent evidence exists, the “question of whether the evidence is inconsistent with any оther reasonable inference is a question of fact for the jury.” Long v. State, 689 So.2d 1055, 1058 (Fla.1997); see also State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187, 188-89 (Fla. 1989) (applying circumstantial evidence rule to determination of motion for judgment of acquittal). On reviеw, the appellate court must view the conflicting evidence in a light most favorable to the state. Peterka v. State, 640 So.2d 59, 68 (Fla.1994). A jury‘s verdict will not be overturned on appeal as long as cоmpetent, substantial evidence supports it. Woods v. State, 733 So.2d 980, 985 (Fla. 1999).
We consider the blue lights on two different vеhicles in conjunction with a concerted effort by four men to apprehend Nеlson, with one of them wearing a T-shirt with police markings, sufficient to support the jury‘s verdict.
Nelson relies heavily on People v. Estrella, 31 Cal.App.4th 716, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 383 (1995). But thаt case involved an entirely different statutory scheme. The defendant was acсused of fleeing a peace officer and the statute specifically rеquired the peace officer‘s vehicle to be “distinctively
Affirmed.