D.M., 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.
Juvenile's delinquency adjudication for robbery reversed because circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish intent to participate as an aider and abettor where he was merely a passenger in the vehicle and did not commit the actual theft.
A juvenile may be adjudicated as an aider and abettor to robbery only if the state establishes intent to participate in the crime, and circumstantial evidence of such intent must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
[1] An aider and abettor to robbery must have intended to participate in the crime, and circumstantial evidence of such intent must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypoth…
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 intelligence“Where, as here, there is no evidence that appellant actually committed the crime, he may be adjudicated only as an aider and abettor and only if the state establishes that he intended to participate in the crime.”
Court explaining the legal standard for aiding and abetting liability when the defendant did not commit the principal crime.
D.M. was a passenger in a car when one of five other youths snatched a purse from a victim's hands. When the car was stopped, D.M. was in the passenge…
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
BASKIN, Judge.
The trial court adjudicated appellant delinquent, finding that he participated in a robbery. The evidence adduced at his hearing established that D.M. was riding in an automobile when one of five other youths in the car reached out and snatched a purse out of the victim’s hands. The car then left the scene. When the car was stopped, appellant was in the passenger seat with the purse between his legs. The contents of the purse were strewn about the front of the car. The victim testified that D.M. was not the person who snatched the purse. Appellant fled when the car was stopped.
Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the element of intent necessary for an adjudication based on robbery. Where, as here, there is no evidence that appellant actually committed the crime, he may be adjudicated only as an aider and abettor and only if the state establishes that he intended to participate in the crime. A.Y.G. v. State, 414 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); J.H. v. State, 370 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1980). Circumstantial evidence of intent must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. McArthur v. State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla.1977).
The evidence is circumstantial and even less compelling than the evidence we held required reversal in Douglas v. State, 214 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Finding the testimony insufficient to establish either appellant’s knowledge of the crime prior to its commission, or his intent to participate in the robbery, we reverse the adjudication of delinquency.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 436 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ckson knew beforehand of his companion’s intentions, much less that he had a prior intention to participate in the offense, and manifestly does not support Jackson’s conviction for aiding and abetting in the commission of the robbery. D.M. v. State, 435 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Davis v. State, 436 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Gains v. State, 417 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. den., 426 So. 2d 26 (Fla.1983); Stuckey v. State, 414 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); A.Y.G. v. State, 414 So. 2d 1158 (…
Authorities Cited
- Nadean O. McARTHUR v. State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1977)
- Ira Douglas v. State, 214 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- J. H. v. State, 370 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- A. Y. G. v. State, 414 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)