Smith v. State

The defendants, Smith and Duhart, appeal from their judgments of conviction on the charge of robbery.

Smith argues that his conviction was based upon circumstantial evidence which did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. A review of the evidence refutes this argument. See Williams v. State, 73 Fla. 1198, 75 So. 785 (1917); Douglas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 653, and Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24.

Duhart claims that the evidence of his identification was insufficient to sustain *603the jury verdict of guilty and the judgment of conviction. The record reveals…