E.R., 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.
The juvenile's adjudication for grand theft and burglary was reversed because the state failed to place him at the scene or identify him as one of the perpetrators observed by police.
An adjudication of grand theft and burglary must be reversed when there is no evidence placing the defendant inside the burglarized house, no identification of the defendant as one of the perpetrators observed by police, and no continuous surveillance establishing the defendant's presence in the vehicle used to transport the stolen safe.
[1] Conviction for theft and burglary cannot be sustained on evidence that merely shows the defendant was apprehended near the stolen property without identification as one o…
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 intelligenceAn 800-pound safe was stolen from a home. Police observed three males dragging a large box near the victim's home and later observed four individuals …
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 Burglary Of A Dwelling cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The juvenile appeals from an adjudication of guilt based upon a finding that he committed grand theft and burglary of a dwelling. The sole question on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant’s conviction. We think not.
An 800-pound safe was stolen from the victim’s home. Police officers responded to a report that three males were seen dragging a large box across the street from the victim’s home. The safe was discovered hidden in a nearby field. A “stake-out” resulted in the officers’ observation of four individuals lifting the safe into a car. The vehicle was stopped some time later and the juvenile was apprehended along with several other persons. On this evidence, the defendant’s adjudication must be reversed because: (1) there was neither testimony nor physical evidence to place the juvenile inside the burglarized house; (2) the juvenile was never identified as one of the three men observed by police near the stolen safe, nor as one of the four individuals later seen lifting the safe into the car; and (3) the vehicle was not in the continuous sight of the officers and, thus, the state failed to establish that the juvenile was one of the four males seen placing the safe in the ear. See McWatters v. State, 375 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.K. v. State, 448 So. 2d 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…s, when taken together, must be of a conclusive nature and tendency, leading on the whole to a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no one else committed the offense charged.” Id. at 581 (emphasis in original). See also E.R. v. State, 422 So. 2d 88 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); J.A.L. v. State, 409 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In the case at bar, the circumstances taken as a whole are consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The school was selling candles as a fundraising project; appella…
Authorities Cited
- McWATTERS v. State, 375 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)