Smith v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the statutory inference set forth in section 812.022(2) could not have supported burglary conviction where no evidence in the record established that the defendant possessed the stolen DVD player, either constructively or actually
• concluding that the statutory inference set forth in section 812.022(2) could not have supported burglary conviction where no evidence in the record established that the defendant possessed the stolen DVD player, either constructively or actually
• concluding that the statutory inference set forth in section 812.022(2) could not have supported burglary conviction where no evidence in the record established that the defendant possessed the stolen DVD player, either constructively or actually

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• A. L. v. STATE OF FLORIDA
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2019-07-10
• A.L. v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2019-07-10

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• Francis v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2001-12-20· cited 120×