P.A.P., 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 juvenile court adjudicated a minor delinquent on four counts of theft and committed him to the Department of Health and Rehabilitation. On appeal, the court reversed convictions on three counts due to insufficient evidence, but affirmed the conviction on one count and the commitment order.
The appellate court reversed the convictions on counts 5, 8, and 9 because the evidence was insufficient to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction on count 3 was affirmed, as was the order of commitment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitation.
[1] The standard of proof required to adjudge a minor delinquent is the same as that required to convict an adult.
[2] Vague and indefinite testimony, amounting to nothing more than suspicious circumstances, is insufficient to support a conviction.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The standard of proof necessary to adjudge a minor delinquent is the same as that required to convict an adult.”
Establishes the legal standard for adjudicating juveniles as delinquent in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceP.A.P. was charged with twelve counts of theft under Florida Statutes Section 810.02. After trial before the juvenile court, he was acquitted of eight…
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 Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
P.A.P., a child, appeals an order of the juvenile court adjudicating him delinquent and an order committing him to the Department of Health and Rehabilitation. He was charged with twelve counts of theft, in violation of Section 810.02, Florida Statutes. After trial before the court, he was found not guilty of eight counts (one charge involved a separate case not involved in this appeal). Appellant was found guilty as charged in counts 3, 5, 8, and 9.- This appeal followed timely.
Appellant contends that the evidence introduced against him was insufficient to support a finding that he was guilty of the offense charged in each count. We agree with him as to counts 5, 8, and 9, but disagree as to count 3.
The state relied to a great extent on the testimony of one Wilk, one of appellant’s coperpetrators. We did not have all of Wilk’s testimony before us. We ordered that the deleted portions be transcribed and made a part of the record, but were advised that the testimony had only been taped, had subsequently been erased, and was therefore not available.
After reading the testimony included in the record, we 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 concerning this issue consisted primarily of Wilk’s testimony. His testimony is vague and indefinite, amounting to nothing more than, at most, suspicious circumstances and as such is simply insufficient to support a conviction. Hall v. State, 303 So. 2d 428 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). For example, he could not remember the dates the burglaries took place, identify the places where they occurred, or remember what property was stolen.
We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support appellant’s convictions of counts 5, 8, and 9.
We have considered the other points raised by appellant and judge them to be without merit.
The convictions are REVERSED as to counts 5, 8, and 9, and AFFIRMED as to count 3. The order of commitment is AFFIRMED.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of J. L., 405 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…more than one infraction of the law, an appellate court will not reverse the finding of delinquency if at least one of the findings of guilt is correct. See, for example, Interest of B.S. v. State, 320 So. 2d 459 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); P.A.P. v. State, 383 So. 2d 922 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). We reverse the finding of guilty of petit theft, affirm the additional findings and affirm the commitment. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. ' LETTS, C. J., and HERSEY and GLICK-STEIN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Hall v. State, 303 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- R. C. B. v. State, 374 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)