Schmitt v. State

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that there was sufficient evidence of appellant’s intent to possess the controlled substance. Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187 (Fla.1989). In order to survive a motion for judgment of acquittal, the state must introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of events. Id. at 189.

In my view, the state failed to demonstrate that appellant knew the bag of…