Whetston v. State

Citations

• 31 Fla. 240

Syllabus

<p>1. Circumstantial evidence may be relied upon to establish guilt, but the value of this kind of evidence consists in the conclusive nature and tendency of the circumstances relied upon; they must not only be consistent with guilt, but must be inconsistent with ¡¡innocence. Such evidence is always insufficient where, assuming all to be proved which the evidence tends to prove, some other hypothesis may still be true. What circumstances will amount to proof can never be matter of general definition; the legal test is their sufficiency to satisfy the understanding and conscience of the jury to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt.</p> <p>2. Tracks, marks or indications discovered at ornear the scene of the crime, tending to connect the accused with them, and pointing to him as the'guilty agent, may be shown in evidence to establish the charge against him. Among these, indications, footprints found at or near the place where the crime was committed, along with the discovery of the crime, corresponding with the tracks of the accused, may be resorted to for the purpose of identifying him as the guilty party.</p> <p>3. Where foot-prints found at or near the scene of crime are not distinguished from those of the ordinary character by any peculiar marks, and the correspondence between them and the tracks of the accused is merely in superficial shape, outline and dimensions, it may serve to confirm a conclusion established by independent evidence, but cannot be in itself safely relied on, on account of the general resemblance known to exist among feet and shoes of persons of the same age or size. But where certain peculiarities are observed which at once distinguish the impressions from all others, an exact correspondence, verified by the test of comparison, may have a decisive bearing.</p> <p>4. The testimony in this case considered and held insufficient to sustain the verdict.</p>