J.W., 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 for burglary, criminal mischief, and possession of burglary tools based on circumstantial evidence that he was present at the crime scene and fled. The court reversed, finding insufficient evidence to establish he acted as an aider and abettor rather than merely as a witness.
The court held that the state failed to present sufficient evidence of aiding and abetting. Since no one identified the appellant as breaking the window or leaning into the car, he could only be guilty if he acted as an aider and abettor, but the state presented no evidence of intent to participate or assistance to the perpetrator. Presence at the scene and flight alone are legally insufficient to establish aiding and abetting.
[1] To establish guilt as an aider and abettor, the state must prove intent to participate in the criminal act and that the defendant rendered assistance to the perpetrator.
[2] Circumstantial evidence used to prove assistance and intent to participate in a crime must exclude every 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“For appellant to be guilty as an aider and abettor, the state must prove that he had an intent to participate in the criminal act and rendered assistance to the actual perpetrator of the crime.”
Establishes the legal standard for aiding and abetting liability in this jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVivian Taylor parked her car at her sister's house. J.W. and another individual were observed standing next to Taylor's car when the driver's window w…
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 Possession Of Burglary Tools cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
J.W., a juvenile, appeals from an adjudication of delinquency arising from a determination that he was guilty of criminal mischief, burglary and possession of burr glary tools.
The issue in this appeal is whether the state adduced sufficient evidence to establish that appellant was an aider and abettor to the offenses charged. The facts, briefly stated, were as follows. After Vivian Taylor parked her car at her sister’s house and went inside, appellant and another individual were observed standing next to the driver’s side of Taylor’s car. Appellant and the other individual were by the car when the driver’s window was smashed. One individual was observed leaning into the car while the other was seen standing with his hand on the front of the automobile, looking toward the house. When occupants of a nearby house came out, the appellant and the other person ran away. No one at the adjudicatory hearing could identify which individual had broken the window, or who had leaned into the window. After the state offered this evidence, it rested its case. The appellant then moved for a judgment of acquittal, which motion was denied. He was thereafter adjudicated delinquent.
Since no one at the hearing could identify who broke the window or leaned into the window, it must be assumed it was not the appellant. J.L.B. v. State, 396 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); K.W.U. v. State, 367 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1979). Appellant could then only be found guilty of the offenses charged if he acted as an aider and abettor. For appellant to be guilty as an aider and abettor, the state must prove that he had an intent to participate in the criminal 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 against him is that he was present at the scene of the commission of a crime and that he fled therefrom. He contends the state offers no evidence that he assisted in the perpetration of a crime or that he had the intent to join in the crime. We agree with appellant’s assertions.
Where the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the accused’s assistance and intent to participate, it is necessary for the state to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Jaramillo v. State, 417 So. 2d 257 (Fla.1982); McArthur v. State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1977); Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1956); Pack v. State, 381 So. 2d at 1200; Lockett v. State, 262 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). This the state has not done.
The state has not excluded the reasonable hypothesis that the appellant was merely a witness to the crime. Presence at the scene of the offense and flight from the scene is legally insufficient to establish appellant’s guilt as an aider and abettor. J.L.B. v. State, 396 So. 2d at 762; D.M. v. State, 394 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); J.O. v. State, 384 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Pack v. State, 381 So. 2d at 1200; J.H. v. State, 370 So. 2d at 1220. Therefore the order of adjudication and commitment is reversed and the case remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
T.L.F. v. State, 467 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…l court’s determination that T.L.F. committed a delinquent act upon a holding that the record is devoid of sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of guilt for the crime of theft under section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1983). See J.W. v. State, 467 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and cases cited therein; A.K. v. State, 439 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); G.C. v. State, 407 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Reversed.…
-
Warmington v. State, 149 So. 3d 648 (Fla. 2014)…granted the respondent’s motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to the burglary count where there was no evidence refuting his reasonable hypothesis of innocence that he was only an onlooker or mere witness to a crime.” (citing J.W. v. State, 467 So. 2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985))); Tomlin v. State, 333 So. 2d 500, [*661] 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (“[T]he evidence was subject to the reasonable hypothesis of appellant’s innocence in that the marijuana [as the appellant argued] may have been in the possess…
-
M.F. v. State, 549 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…so, committed reversible error. “Where the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the accused’s assistance and intent to participate, it is necessary for the state to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” J. W. v. State, 467 So. 2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (citations omitted). Here, the state did not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that M.F. was merely an onlooker. “Presence at the scene of the offense and flight from the scene is legally insufficient to establish appellant’s…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Nadean O. McARTHUR v. State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1977)
- Hoyt Dan Davis v. State, 90 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1956)
- Anibal Jaramillo v. State, 417 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1982)
- Johnnell Lockett v. State, 262 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- J. H. v. State, 370 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Pack v. State, 381 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- G. C. v. State, 407 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- J. L. B. v. State, 396 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- T.J.T. v. State, 460 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- J. O. and R. G. v. State, 384 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)