G. C., 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 was adjudicated delinquent as an aider and abettor to attempted burglary based on evidence that he knew of the crime and was present at the scene watching it occur. The appellate court reversed, holding that knowledge and presence alone are insufficient to establish aiding and abetting liability without proof of intent and some affirmative act to aid or encourage the perpetrator.
The evidence was insufficient to prove aiding and abetting. Under Florida Statutes Section 777.011, accomplice liability requires both a conscious intent that the criminal act be committed and some affirmative act or statement intended to incite, cause, encourage, assist, or induce the perpetrator. Knowledge and presence at the scene, without more, are insufficient to establish either the requisite intent or the required affirmative act of participation.
[1] To prove aiding and abetting, the state must demonstrate not only a conscious intent that the criminal act be done, but also that the defendant performed an act or uttere…
[2] Mere presence at the scene of a crime, without more, is insufficient to establish either the intent to participate or an act of participation in the offense.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In order for one person to be guilty of a crime physically committed by another under Section 777.011, Florida Statutes (1979), it is necessary that he not only have a conscious intent that the criminal act shall be done, but further requires that pursuant to that intent he do some act or say some word which was intended to and which did incite cause, encourage, assist or induce another person to actually commit the crime.”
Establishes the two-part test for accomplice liability requiring both intent and affirmative act
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceG.C. knew that Delgado was going to burglarize an apartment. G.C. followed Delgado to the scene of the crime and stood back at least fifteen feet watc…
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 Adjudication Of Delinquency cases and more on FLexlaw
[*640] FERGUSON, Judge.
G.C., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent as an aider and abettor to attempted burglary.
Accepting all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the state at best there is proof that (1) G.C. knew that Delgado was going to burglarize an apartment, (2) G.C. followed Delgado to the scene of the crime, (3) G.C. stood back at least fifteen feet and watched Delgado remove jalousie glasses from the window of the apartment. The evidence before the court is less than 'that necessary to prove that G.C. aided and abetted in the attempted burglary.
In order for one person to be guilty of a crime physically committed by another under Section 777.011, Florida Statutes (1979), it is necessary that he not only have a conscious intent that the criminal act shall be done, but further requires that pursuant to that intent he do some act or say some word which was intended to and which did incite cause, encourage, assist or induce another person to-actually commit the crime. Ryals v. State, 112 Fla. 4, 150 So. 132 (1933); J.L.B. v. State, 396 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); R.W.G. v. State, 395 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Chaudoin v. State, 362 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
The state implores that the necessary elements of intent and act may be inferred — because G.C. knew that Delgado was going to commit a crime and was present during Delgado’s attempt, it is established beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt that G.C. was a “lookout”. Where two or more inferences must be drawn from the direct evidence, then pyramided to prove the offense, the evidence lacks the conclusive nature necessary to support a conviction. Gustine v. State, 86 Fla. 24, 97 So. 207 (1923). Presence at the scene, without more, is not sufficient to establish either intent to participate or act of participation. J.L.B. v. State, supra; J.H. v. State, 370 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Mere knowledge that an offense is being committed is not equivalent to participation with criminal intent. See, e.g., United States v. Martin, 533 F. 2d 268 (5th Cir. 1976). Knowledge that a crime is going to be committed and presence at the scene, without more, is generally insufficient to establish aiding and abetting. See, e.g., Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 619, 69 S.Ct. 766, 769, 93 L.Ed. 919, 925 (1949); Baker v. United States, 395 F. 2d 368 (8th Cir. 1968); Ramirez v. United States, 363 F. 2d 33 (9th Cir. 1966).
Reversed with instructions to discharge the juvenile.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Collins v. State, 438 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…and from the scene or a display of questionable behavior after the fact, is not sufficient to establish participation. Interest of R.W.G. v. State, 395 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Pack v. State, 381 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); G.C. v. State, 407 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Where two or more inferences in regard to the existence of criminal intent and criminal acts must be drawn from the evidence and then pyramided to prove the offense charged, the evidence lacks the conclusive nature to support th…
-
T.J.T. v. State, 460 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…e state then rested. The appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal, which motion was denied. The appellant was thereafter adjudicated delinquent as charged. On appeal appellant argues that this set of facts is identical to those in G.C. v. State, 407 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), wherein the evidence sustaining the conviction of aiding and abetting in the attempted commission of burglary was found to be legally insufficient. In G.C., the juvenile knew of his companion’s intent to commit a burglary and fol…
-
J.W. v. State, 467 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…iminal act and rendered assistance to the actual perpetrator of the crime. N.W. v. State, 10 FLW 645 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 14, 1985); A.R. v. State, 460 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); T.J.T. v. State, 460 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); G.C. v. State, 407 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); J.L.B. v. State, 396 So. 2d at 762; Pack v. State, 381 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); J.H. v. State, 370 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1980). Appellant contends that the state’s only evidence…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- NYE & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613 (U.S. 1949)
- Gustine v. State, 86 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1923)
- J. H. v. State, 370 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Clark Dean Chaudoin v. State, 362 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Ryals v. State, 112 Fla. 4 (Fla. 1933)
- Baker v. United States, 395 F.2d 368 (8th Cir. 1968)
- J. L. B. v. State, 396 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Ramirez v. United States, 363 F.2d 33 (9th Cir. 1966)
- Morris v. State, 395 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- In the Interest of R. W. G. v. State, 395 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)