R. C. B., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A child appellant was adjudicated delinquent for burglary based on hearsay testimony from an informant that the appellant confessed to breaking into a service station. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the state failed to prove the appellant committed the burglary on the specific date charged because no evidence placed the appellant at the service station on the relevant night.
The state failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the appellant committed the burglary on the date charged. While the informant testified to a confession by the appellant, the informant could not establish when the burglary occurred, and no other evidence placed the appellant at the service station on the night in question. Accordingly, the adjudication of delinquency must be reversed.
[1] The state bears the burden of proving that a juvenile committed an offense on the specific date alleged in a delinquency petition.
[2] A juvenile delinquency adjudication based on burglary requires sufficient evidence to place the juvenile at the scene of the crime on the date alleged.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Since it charged appellant with a burglary on a particular date, it was the state's burden at the subsequent delinquency hearing to prove that appellant committed an offense occurring on that date.”
Establishes that the state must prove the specific date of the crime charged, not just that the appellant committed some burglary on an unspecified date.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was charged with burglary of a service station in Hillsborough County occurring between 8:30 p.m. on July 1 and 9:00 a.m. on July 2, 197…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Delinquency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a lower court order adjudicating appellant delinquent based on a charge of burglary. We agree with appellant that there was insufficient evidence to support the charge and quash the lower court’s order. An amended petition for delinquency and a bill of particulars charged that appellant had broken into a service station in Hills-borough County sometime between 8:30 p. m. on July 1 and 9:00 a. m. on July 2, 1978. This was the forth time in a three-week period that this particular service station had been victimized by burglaries. In each case a hole had been cut in the ceiling of a restroom and money and goods had been removed.
Since it charged appellant with a burglary on a particular date, it was the state’s burden at the subsequent delinquency hearing to prove that appellant committed an offense occurring on that date. State v. Beamon, 298 So. 2d 376 (Fla.1974).1 This the state failed to do. Its chief witness was a 16-year-old informant who was an acquaintance of appellant. He testified that at some point after July 2,2 as he and appellant were walking past the service station, appellant remarked that he had broken into the station by cutting a hole in the ceiling above the ladies’ restroom and had taken some money and cigarettes.3 Unfortunately for the state, however, appellant did not indicate to his acquaintance when it was that he committed the burglary. Since no other evidence was introduced which would have placed appellant in the service station on the night in question, the petition for delinquency should have been denied.
REVERSED.
BOARDMAN and DANAHY, JJ., concur. . The standard of proof in a delinquency proceeding is the same as in an adult criminal proceeding dealing with the same offense upon which the charge of delinquency is based. D. M. M. v. State, 275 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); J-L. J. v. State, 367 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
. His testimony was contradictory as to when this conversation occurred. It was apparently between July 2 and August 1, 1978, the latter being the date on which the detective investigating the burglaries first questioned him.
.Appellant testified and denied having made such a statement. He stated that he might have been bragging about how easy it would be to break in, but that he had never broken into the station.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gaines v. State, 406 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…embarrassed or prejudiced in his defense in any way by relying on the inconsequential date of June 21, 1978, the trial court was correct in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and denying his requested instruction. Compare R.C.B. v. State, 374 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (date of offense significant where burglaries of same premises occurred within three-week period); Jackson v. State, 350 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (date of offense significant where alibi defense directed to specific date char…
-
Jefferson v. State, 391 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…ony on the subject established the date of the crimes as late evening on June 18 or early morning of June 19. . E. g., Howlett v. State, 260 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Perlman v. State, 269 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). . R. C. B. v. State, 374 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). In Hoffman v. State, 372 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), the court approved an amendment to the statement of particulars before any evidence was submitted. Crowell v. State, 238 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970), approved in Beamon,…
-
P.A.P. v. State, 383 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…e conclude that the evidence concerning counts 5, 8, and 9 falls far short of the standard of proof required to convict. The standard of proof necessary to adjudge a minor delinquent is the same as that required to convict an adult. R.C.B. v. State, 374 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); J.L.J. v. State, 367 So. 2d 699 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); D.M.M. v. State, 275 So. 2d 308 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). We are unable to find any evidence that would have placed appellant in each residence at the times in question. The evidence co…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Beamon, 298 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1974)
- D. M. M. v. State, 275 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- J. L. J. v. State, 367 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)