Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire? Not in a Florida Courtroom.

By: John Guidry

I had an argument with a prosecutor recently (shocking, I know), and her entire case boiled down to repeating the cliché, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” The problem with clichés is that they are an admission of intellectual weakness. When you can’t win on the facts or the law, you resort to folksy sayings.

My business is making substantive legal arguments. And in a criminal court, “smoke” is not enough to convict someone. Let’s look at the real-life case of A.B. v. State, 141 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) to see why.

Is the State’s Case Against You All “Smoke” and No “Fire”? If you have been charged based on purely circumstantial evidence in Orlando, you need an attorney who can hold the prosecutor to their high burden of proof. Call my office. Call John Guidry: (407) 423-1117

A Real-World Example: The Case of the Basketball Court Theft

• The Scene: A group of kids were playing basketball at a park, their wallets and cell phones left on the sidelines. After the game, they noticed their stuff was gone and saw a couple of kids, including A.B., running from the area.
• The “Smoke”: A.B. was present at the scene. He ran away. When police caught up with him two weeks later, he allegedly made an ambiguous statement: “I can’t believe I am going down for this alone.”
• The Missing “Fire”: No one ever saw A.B. take anything. He was never found in possession of any of the stolen items.
• The Verdict: Based on this purely circumstantial evidence, A.B. was convicted of petit theft.

The Law of Circumstantial Evidence: More Than Suspicion is Required

The conviction was appealed, and the appellate court threw it out. The reason is that Florida law requires far more than the “smoke, fire” cliché that cops and prosecutors love to use. The law is crystal clear:

“Mere knowledge that an offense is being committed, mere presence at the scene, and even a display of questionable behavior after the fact, are not, alone, sufficient to establish participation” in a crime. (quoting Theophile v. State, 78 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)).

What about A.B.’s statement that he was “going down for this alone?” The court ruled that this was not a clear admission of guilt. Citing Friske v. State, 366 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1978), they noted that statements to police that are “ambiguous and susceptible of innocent explanation” must be resolved in favor of the accused.

The appeals court found that the State’s evidence “simply fell short.” Running away and making a vague statement was not enough to prove A.B. committed a crime. Sadly, this is the type of weak case that many prosecutors refuse to drop and many trial judges refuse to dismiss, wasting taxpayer money in the process.

John’s Takeaways

• “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire” is a cliché, NOT a legal standard of proof in a Florida criminal court.
• To win a case based only on circumstantial evidence, the State’s proof must be inconsistent with any reasonable theory of innocence.
• Mere presence at the scene of a crime, even combined with suspicious behavior like running away, is not enough to prove guilt.
• Ambiguous statements to police that could have an innocent explanation must be interpreted in a light most favorable to the accused.
• An experienced attorney can get a conviction overturned when the State’s case is built on suspicion and circumstance rather than solid proof.

Prosecutors have the power to save taxpayer money, but they have to know the law of circumstantial evidence first. I have been making these exact arguments for my clients in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, Brevard, and Volusia County since 1993. If you believe you have been unfairly charged based on smoke and mirrors, call my office.

About the Author, John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.