C.L.A., 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.
Court affirmed juvenile's adjudication for aiding and abetting grand theft, holding that circumstantial evidence of acting as a 'spotter' to distract store clerk and watch for observers was sufficient to establish intent to participate and render assistance.
Circumstantial evidence that a juvenile acted as a 'spotter' by distracting a store clerk and watching for observers while a companion stole jewelry is sufficient to establish aiding and abetting liability.
[1] Circumstantial evidence that a juvenile acted as a 'spotter' by distracting a store clerk and watching for observers while a companion committed theft is sufficient to es…
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 intelligenceA juvenile was observed by a store security chief acting as a 'spotter' for his companion—questioning the store clerk to distract attention and lookin…
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 Accomplice Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
C.L.A., a juvenile, appeals from an adjudication of delinquency based on a finding that he was guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of grand theft. We affirm upon a holding that the circumstantial evidence presented, including the testimony of the store’s security chief that he observed C.L.A. acting as the “spotter” for his companion by questioning the store clerk so as to distract the clerk’s attention and looking over his shoulder for other persons who might be watching while his companion pried open a jewelry display case and removed certain items of jewelry, excluded the hypothesis that C.L.A. was merely a witness to the crime and was sufficient to establish his intent to participate and his rendering of assistance to the perpetrator of the offense. Cf. J.W. v. State, 467 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (juvenile’s mere presence at scene of offense and flight therefrom legally insufficient to establish participation as aider and abettor); In re A.R., 460 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (in absence of police officer’s stricken testimony that juvenile acted as “lookout,” evidence insufficient to show juvenile committed offense of burglary of structure); G.C. v. State, 407 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (juvenile’s knowledge that crime was going to be committed and mere presence at scene of crime generally insufficient to establish aiding and abetting). See generally Kaufman v. State, 429 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Brown v. State, 391 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Porter v. State, 582 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…§ 775.082, § 775.083, or § 775.084 as supported by record and found by the trial court. In short, Porter served as a lookout for drug dealers and because of his warning to them they were able to escape from the police officers. See C.L.A. v. State, 478 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Goffin v. State, 560 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). These cases are to be distinguished from those cases where the conduct or language is merely abusive or offensive. See K.Y.E. v. State, 557 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). [*43…
-
Marissa Contes v. State, 190 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…ipate in the crime by serving (as an eyewitness described) as a lookout for her co-defendant during the commission of a burglary, and was therefore guilty as a principal to the- crime of - burglary. See § 777.011, Fla. Stat. (2013); C.L.A. v. State, 478 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Cf. In the Interest of A.R., 460 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). We therefore affirm [*199] the judgment and sentence for the burglary charge. However, we reverse the judgment and sentence for the charge of grand theft, as the…
-
B.G. v. State, 530 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See C.L.A. v. State, 478 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); T.J.T. v. State, 460 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- G. C. v. State, 407 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- J.W. v. State, 467 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Mervin Brown v. State, 391 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- In the Interest of A.R., 460 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- London Watson v. Jairo Sanchez, 429 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Kaufman v. State, 429 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)