SMITH v. STATE (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Jaquez Tuijay SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D21-988

Decided: February 01, 2022

Tonya D. Cromartie, of The Law Office of Tonya D. Cromartie, P.A., Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

AFFIRMED. See Bush v. State, 295 So. 3d 179, 184 (Fla. 2020) (abandoning special standard of appellate review previously applied in wholly circumstantial evidence cases); Staten v. State, 519 So. 2d 622, 624 (Fla. 1988) (holding that “[c]learly, the getaway driver who has prior knowledge of the criminal plan and is ‘waiting to help the robbers escape’ ․ [is] a principal” (citing Enmund v. State, 399 So. 2d 1362, 1370 (Fla. 1981))); Hill v. State, 958 So. 2d 549, 552 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (affirming the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal based upon an insufficiency of the evidence argument where the defendant watched his companion commit a crime, waited for him to return to the vehicle, and then drove the companion and the stolen property away); Jennings v. State, 124 So. 3d 257, 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“Generally speaking, the use of a curative instruction to dispel the prejudicial effect of an objectionable comment is sufficient.” (quoting Rivera v. State, 745 So. 2d 343, 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999))).

PER CURIAM.

LAMBERT, C.J., EVANDER and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network