B. L. W., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Juvenile's adjudication for motor vehicle theft reversed because mere presence as a passenger in a stolen vehicle, without knowledge of the theft, is insufficient evidence of the crime.
Mere presence as a passenger in a stolen motor vehicle, without more, is insufficient evidence to support a conviction for motor vehicle theft under Fla. Stat. § 812.014(1), (2)(b)4.
[1] Mere presence as a passenger in a stolen motor vehicle, without knowledge of the theft or additional evidence of participation, is insufficient evidence to support a conv…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile was arrested as a passenger in a stolen motor vehicle. He told police he had just been picked up by the driver and testified at trial that …
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 Knowledge Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Based on the state’s confession of error filed in this cause, as well as our own independent review of the record herein, the adjudication of delinquency under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to discharge the appellant from the cause.
The state concedes, and we agree, that the appellant’s mere presence as a passenger in the stolen motor vehicle in this case, without more, represents insufficient evidence upon which to convict him of motor vehicle theft under Section 812.014(1), (2)(b)4, Fla.Stat. (1979), especially where the appellant (a) told the police upon his arrest that he had just been picked up before by the driver of the stolen motor vehicle, and (b) testified at trial that he did not know the motor vehicle was stolen. The trial court, accordingly, erred in denying the appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of all the evidence in this cause. Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1956); Mayo v. State, 71 So. 2d 899, 904 (Fla.1954); McWatters v. State, 375 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Lockett v. State, 262 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Douglas v. State, 214 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).
Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge the appellant from the cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E.L.S. v. State, 547 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…im the truck belonged to the driver’s uncle from whom it had recently been stolen and to whom it had been returned precluded conviction under section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1987). R.M., 450 So. 2d at 897; R.M., 412 So. 2d at 44; B.L.W. v. State, 393 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see also, P.L.C. v. State, 458 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); R.D.S. v. State, 446 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); R.A.L. v. State, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Reversed and remanded. NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ., concur.…
-
A.T. v. State, 448 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…o. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Sections 90.801, 90.-803 and 90.806 Florida Statutes (1983). However, we find the evidence that the appellant was guilty of theft to be insufficient. Danek v. State, 429 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); B.L.W. v. State, 393 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3 DCA 1981). Therefore for the reasons above stated the adjudication of delinquency under review be and the same is hereby reversed with directions to discharge the appellant. Reversed and remanded with directions.…
-
D.I. v. State, 519 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ailed to produce sufficient evidence to support the convictions, we reverse. See R.M. v. State, 450 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); R.M. v. State, 412 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); R.A.L. v. State, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); B.L.W. v. State, 393 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See also B.P. v. State, 515 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); C.P.P. v. State, 479 So. 2d 858 (Fla 1st DCA 1985); J.K. v. State, 448 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge appellant. .…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hoyt Dan Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1956)
- Mayo v. State, 71 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1954)
- Johnnell Lockett v. State, 262 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Ira Douglas v. State, 214 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- McWATTERS v. State, 375 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)