J. J., 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 charged with robbery after property was stolen from a home he visited. The trial court withheld adjudication and imposed community control, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law because it failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying the juvenile's motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Mere presence at the scene, handling of a gun, and the mother's return of the firearm are insufficient to establish guilt when evidence of intent is entirely circumstantial.
[1] Where evidence of intent to participate in the commission of a crime is entirely circumstantial, the evidence must be consistent with guilt and exclude every reasonable h…
[2] Mere presence at the scene of a crime, handling of a weapon, and the return of the weapon by a parent are insufficient to eliminate a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
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“where evidence of intent to participate in commission of a crime is entirely circumstantial, the evidence must be consistent with guilt and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence”
Establishes the legal standard for sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in proving intent to participate in a crime
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.J. and three other youths visited Susan Wellman's home multiple times over a weekend while her mother was away. During the second visit, J.J. pointe…
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 Intent To Participate In Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
The order of the trial court withheld adjudication of delinquency and placed appellant in a community control program. Because our review of the record in this case convinces us that the evidence failed to negate every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, we hold that the trial court erred in denying the juvenile’s motion for judgment of acquittal and reverse the decision with directions to discharge the juvenile.
Testimony at the adjudicatory hearing disclosed that J. J., along with another boy, “Mickey Mouse”, and two girls, accompanied Susan Wellman to her home several times one weekend while her mother was out of town. On the second visit, Susan saw Mickey Mouse put a gun from her mother’s night table'into his sock. Susan told the boy to leave and replaced the gun in a drawer with a second gun and some jewelry. After the youths’ final visit to the house on Monday morning, Susan discovered both guns and the jewelry missing. Several days later J. J. and his parents appeared at the police station at which time J. J. admitted knowledge of the crime to police, but claimed he was simply present while the other boy took the property. The only evidence linking J. J. with the robbery was testimony by the Wellman’s housekeeper that J. J. had pointed a gun at her on the second visit to the house and the fact that J. J.’s mother turned one of the guns over to the police the day after J. J. made his statement.1
The law is well settled that where evidence of intent to participate in commission of a crime is entirely circumstantial, the evidence must be consistent with guilt and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Thomas v. State, 374 So. 2d 508 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 972, 100 S.Ct. 1666, 64 L.Ed.2d 249 (1980); P. R. v. State, 389 So. 2d 1078 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); K. W. U. v. State, 367 So. 2d 647 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1979). Appellant’s mere presence at the scene, Pack v. State, 381 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), his handling of the gun, and his mother’s return of the firearm are insufficient to eliminate a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See J. L. B. v. State, 396 So. 2d 761 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); D. M. v. State, 394 So. 2d 520 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); J. O. v. State, 384 So. 2d 966 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); J. H. v. State, 370 So. 2d 1219 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1980).
Reversed.
. The defendant was not charged with aggravated assault.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- J. H. v. State, 370 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Pack v. State, 381 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Thomas v. State, 374 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1979)
- J. L. B. v. State, 396 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Missouri v. Wandix, 445 U.S. 972 (U.S. 1980)
- Ford v. Florida, 445 U.S. 972 (U.S. 1980)
- J. O. and R. G. v. State, 384 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- K. W. U. v. State, 367 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Meneses v. State, 394 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- D. M. v. State, 394 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)