TIMOTHY TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Taylor was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, but the appellate court reversed because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove each element of the burglary offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found critical gaps in the proof, including no evidence that Taylor entered the victim's home or that he intended to commit theft.
The court held that the State failed to introduce sufficient evidence to meet its burden of proving several essential elements of burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, the State presented no evidence that Taylor entered the structure, no evidence of intent to commit theft, and no evidence that the television he was carrying belonged to the victim. Therefore, the conviction was reversed.
[1] Burglary of a dwelling requires proof that the defendant entered a structure owned by another without consent and with the intent to commit theft therein.
[2] A conviction for burglary of a dwelling cannot stand without evidence that the defendant entered the structure.
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 to prove the offense of burglary, Section 810.02(1), Florida Statutes (1981), the State must introduce evidence as to each of the following elements: 1) that the Defendant entered a structure owned or in possession of another person, 2) that the Defendant did not have the permission or consent of that other person, or anyone authorized to act for him, to enter the structure at the time, and 3) at the time of entering the structure Defendant had a fully formed conscious intent to commit the offense of theft in that structure.”
Establishes the legal standard for proving burglary and requires proof of each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA witness testified that he saw Taylor carrying a television set down an alley 50-60 feet away from the victim's house, at which time the victim's bac…
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 Elements Of Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
Taylor was convicted of burglary of a dwelling. He appeals. We reverse because of a failure of proof.
A witness testified that Taylor, whom he recognized, was observed carrying a television set down an alley, some fifty (50) to sixty (60) feet away. At the same time the witness noticed that the back door of the victim’s house was open.
Upon notification at work, the victim traveled to his home and discovered that his television set was missing.
There was no testimony that the television set being transported down the alley belonged to the victim. There was no testimony or evidence that Taylor entered or exited from the victim’s house.
In order to prove the offense of burglary, Section 810.02(1), Florida Statutes (1981), the State must introduce evidence as to each of the following elements: 1) that the Defendant entered a structure owned or in possession of another person, 2) that the Defendant did not have the permission or consent of that other person, or anyone authorized to act for him, to enter the structure at the time, and 3) at the time of entering the structure Defendant had a fully formed conscious intent to commit the offense of theft in that structure.
Here the State failed to introduce any evidence that Taylor had entered the structure. Further, the State failed to introduce evidence of any intent to commit theft. There was no evidence introduced to even show that the television set which Taylor is alleged to have had is the television set that was in the dwelling. When the State fails to meet its burden of proving each and every necessary element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, the case should not be submitted to the jury and a judgment of acquittal should be granted. Ponsell v. State, 393 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In the present instance, the State has failed to meet its burden of proving several essential elements of the offense of burglary of a dwelling.
We reverse and remand with instructions to discharge the Appellant. See McArthur v. Nourse, 358 So. 2d 132 (Fla.1978), cert. granted, 438 U.S. 902, 98 S.Ct. 3119, 57 L.Ed.2d 1145 (1978), on remand, 369 So. 2d 578 (Fla.1979).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs.
ANSTEAD, C.J., dissents with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
Upon review of the trial transcript I am compelled to dissent. It seems to me that this is a classic" case of catching the thief in the act, or, at least the jury was entitled to so find on the evidence presented.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L.C. v. State, 569 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…s, one of whom was found in possession of property stolen at the scene. This proof, standing alone, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1989); J.F., a child, 564 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Taylor v. State, 446 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Owen v. State, 432 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Lockett v. State, 262 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Nadean O. McARTHUR v. Nourse, 369 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1979)
- Ponsell v. State, 393 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Kornit v. Bd. of Educ. of Plainview-Old Bethpage Sch. Dist., 438 U.S. 902 (U.S. 1978)
- McArthur v. Nourse, 438 U.S. 902 (U.S. 1978)