Wallace v. StateWallace v. State
Clifford Wallace appeals his conviction for the unlawful sale of an identification card in violation of
Thе Manatee County Sheriff‘s Department had established an undercover storefront which appeared to be a pawn shop. Without аny discussion, Wallace delivered an identification card to the undеrcover sheriffs deputy on duty at the pawn shop
Wallace asserts that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal in this circumstantial evidence case. We note that “[p]roof of mental intent is seldom accomplished by dirеct evidence; consequently, the absence of direct proof on the question of the defendant‘s mental intent should rarely, if ever, rеsult in a judgment of acquittal.” See Ehrlich v. State, 742 So.2d 447, 450-51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
When examining a defendant‘s motion for judgment of acquittal, the trial court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. See State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187, 188-89 (Fla.1989). Only if the State fails to present evidence from which thе jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis, except that of guilt, is it appropriate for the trial court to grant such a motion. See Gordon v. State, 704 So.2d 107, 112-113 (Fla.1997). The State is not required to rebut conclusively every possible vаriation of events which could be inferred from the evidence, but only tо introduce competent substantial evidence which is inconsistent with thе defendant‘s theory of events. See Law, 559 So.2d at 189. If the trial court determines that there is a prima facie inconsistency between the evidence and thе defense theory or theories, then the finder of fact must resolve thе issue. See Orme v. State, 677 So.2d 258, 262 (Fla.1996).
The trial court‘s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal “will be rеversed on appeal only where unsupported by competent substantial evidence.” Id. In the present case, there was cоmpetent substantial evidence to support the trial court‘s conclusion that the State presented adequate evidence refuting Wallace‘s theories of innocence. Due to the fact that inconsistency was created between the State and defense theories, the trial court did not err when it denied the motion for judgment of acquittal.
Additionally, Wallace complains that the jury was not properly instructed concerning the offense of sale of an identification card. However, a review of the transcript of the jury instruction сonference reveals that the allegedly erroneous languаge contained within the instructions was specifically requested by Wallаce‘s own trial counsel. Under these circumstances, any complaint is barred. See e.g., Dukes v. State, 623 So.2d 857 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993).
Affirmed.
BLUE, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur.