O. A., 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.
A juvenile appellate court affirmed a finding of delinquency for burglary and grand theft based on circumstantial evidence placing the juvenile at the crime scene with incriminating items and evidence of flight from police.
The court affirmed the finding of delinquency, concluding that the totality of circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the juvenile committed the offenses.
[1] Circumstantial evidence, including the time of the incident, a broken window, merchandise stacked near an exit, possession of an item potentially stolen, and evidence of…
[2] A juvenile's explanation for their presence at a crime scene, such as looking for items in a garbage bin, may be considered by the court in evaluating the evidence.
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 hour of the incident, the broken window, the merchandise stacked by the door, the C.B. radio carried by one of the juveniles, coupled with the evidence of flight, was sufficient to support the finding of delinquency.”
The court's articulation of the sufficient circumstantial evidence standard for conviction in this case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 15, 1978, at approximately 2:00 A.M., police responded to a burglar alarm at a Woolco store and found a broken window. Two juveniles rushed fro…
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 Evidence Of Flight cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order entered by the Family Division of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, which withheld an adjudication of delinquency.1
The juvenile was charged with burglary and grand theft of a Woolco Store. The evidence adduced indicated that on May 15, 1978, at approximately 2:00 A.M., police officers responded to an automatic burglar alarm system at a Woolco store. Upon arrival, the officers observed a broken window. The area was cordoned off to prevent the getaway of the perpetrators who the officers believed were still inside the building. Shortly thereafter, two juveniles rushed from behind a garbage bin on the east side of the store some fifty feet from a door near which merchandise from the store had been stacked. One of the juveniles carried a C.B. radio. Both juveniles ran when they saw the approaching officers. Upon being apprehended, the juveniles “explained” their presence at the scene by stating that they were “looking for stuff in the garbage bin.” No other suspects were discovered or apprehended at the premises.
The state opened its evidentiary presentation by calling the manager of the victimized Woolco store. In an attempt to limit the issues for trial, both sides stipulated to his testimony, the effect of which was to establish the elements of the offenses leaving the identity of the perpetrator as the sole remaining issue.
The hour of the incident, the broken window, the merchandise stacked by the door, the C.B. radio carried by one of the juveniles, coupled with the evidence of flight, was sufficient to support the finding of delinquency. Daniels v. State, 108 So. 2d 755 (Fla.1959); Martinez v. State, 346 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 354 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1977). Cf. Perry v. State, 117 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (circumstantial evidence sufficient to support conviction of aiding and abetting in an assault with intent to commit robbery).
Like the trial judge below, we find the evidence was sufficient to show that the juvenile was the perpetrator and affirm.
PEARSON, J., concurs in result only.
. Since the questioned order “affected” the juvenile defendant, it has been made expressly appealable by Section 39.413(1), Florida Statutes (Supp.1978) [formerly numbered 39.411], which became effective October 1, 1978. Ch. 78^14, § 20, Laws of Fla.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of D. J., 414 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See O. A. v. State, 393 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). ANSTEAD, BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.…
-
Hunt v. State, 394 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. O. A. v. State, 393 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (Case No. 78-2065, opinion filed January 27,1981); Sealey v. State, 379 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Tobler v. State, 371 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); DeGeorge v. State, 358 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Greer v. State, 35…
-
M.W. v. State, 477 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. O.A. v. State, 393 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); D.J. v. State, 355 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); J.Y. v. State, 332 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).…
Authorities Cited
- In re Florida BAR, 108 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1959)
- Martinez v. State, 346 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)