A. R., A JUVENILE AND F. M., A JUVENILE, APPELLANTS,
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.
The court held that a prima facie case was not presented, requiring reversal of delinquency adjudications.
Juveniles were adjudicated delinquent based on possession of recently stolen property. The State argued the possession was unexplained, but the defens…
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 Hypothesis Of Innocence cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, TILLMAN, Associate Judge.
These consolidated appeals are by the designated juveniles (A.R. and F.M.) from their respective adjudications as delinquents. The findings by the trial judge arose from a joint trial and the evidence as to each appellant is the same. We reverse upon a holding that a prima facie case was not here presented. See Fisk v. State, 138 Fla. 815, 190 So. 10 (1939); State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1970); Gilbert v. State, 270 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); J. O. and R. G. v. State, 384 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
The State urges that the adjudications ought to be affirmed upon a holding that the circumstances were such that the possession of recently stolen property was not satisfactorily explained. See Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1979). This determination must initially be made by the trier of fact and will only be reversed upon appeal where clearly erroneous. However, where the unrefuted explanation is such that the circumstantial evidence of guilt by reason of possession is also susceptible to the hypothesis of innocence, we must reverse. See Fisk v. State, supra.
Our reading of this record brings these cases clearly within the cited rule of law. The law does not deal in probabilities, but in proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. See Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1956); Fisk v. State, supra.
Accordingly, the adjudications appealed are reversed with directions to discharge the defendants.
Reversed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Bradford v. State, 460 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…f is based on a probability, as in the testimony of Dr. Souviron in this case, it appears that a reasonable doubt of appellant’s guilt remains. “The law does not deal in probabilities, but in proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” A.R. v. State, 393 So. 2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Evidence which provides a possibility of guilt does not provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1956). Evidence is legally insufficient if it does not prove the defendant’s guilt beyond…
-
Jackson v. State, 736 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…state proves the appellant was in possession of the recently stolen property.”). The state’s line of authority is deeply entrenched in Florida legal history. See II infra. Jackson bases his argument on a line of cases beginning with A.R. v. State, 393 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), which have reversed convictions based on the statutory inference alone, where a defendant’s “unrefuted,” reasonable, and innocent explanation for possessing stolen goods renders the evidence insufficient as a matter of law to est…
-
R.M. v. State, 450 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…rrowed it from his stepfather— “rendered the state’s case ... insufficient as a matter of law to establish guilt.” R.A.L. v. State, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See Fisk v. State, 138 Fla. 815, 190 So. 10 (1939); R.M. v. State; A.R. v. State, 393 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Reversed.…
Previewing 3 of 12 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)
- State v. Graham, 238 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1970)
- J. O. and R. G. v. State, 384 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Fisk v. State, 138 Fla. 815 (Fla. 1939)
- Gilbert v. State, 270 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)