LOVE v. STATE (2020)

We affirm the convictions of Appellant, Scott Love, for felony murder, burglary, and robbery. The trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as there was ample evidence from which the jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant committed each crime, as charged. “A motion for judgment of acquittal admits not only the facts in evidence, but every reasonable inference from the evidence favorable to the [S]tate.” Proko v. State, 566 So. 2d 918, 920 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). “The court should not grant the motion unless, when viewed in the light most favorable to the [S]tate, the evidence does not establish a prima facie case of guilt.” Id. (citing Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44, 45 (Fla. 1974); Herman v. State, 472 So. 2d 770, 771 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)).

Appellant argues that his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was violated when he was forced, via search warrant and an order to compel, to tell police the password to his locked cell phone. While that might otherwise be an interesting issue,¹ there is nothing to analyze here. Appellant does not identify anything that the police obtained from his phone nor how anything obtained from his phone was used for purposes of their investigation or as evidence at trial. We affirm as to the balance of the issues raised as they deserve no discussion at all.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See, e.g., Pollard v. State, 287 So. 3d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), reh’g denied, 287 So. 3d 649, 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019); G.A.Q.L. v. State, 257 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); State v. Stahl, 206 So. 3d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

EDWARDS, J.

ORFINGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.