IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.P., A CHILD
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 fourteen-year-old was charged with stealing a bicycle pump and resisting a store employee. The Florida appellate court affirmed the theft conviction but reversed the resisting merchant charge because the statute required a prior finding of guilt on the theft charge before the resisting merchant offense could be proven.
The court affirmed the theft conviction and the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal on that charge, but reversed the resisting merchant conviction because section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes, requires as an essential element that the defendant be "subsequently found to be guilty of theft of the subject merchandise" before the resisting merchant charge can be sustained.
[1] A conviction for resisting a merchant requires a subsequent finding of guilt for the underlying theft offense, as mandated by statute.
[2] A statute's clear and unequivocal language must be followed, even if the legislative intent appears otherwise.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1983), as written requires, as an essential element of the offense of resisting a merchant, that the defendant be "subsequently found to be guilty of theft of the subject merchandise."”
Establishes the statutory requirement that creates the problem with simultaneous charging of both offenses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, age fourteen, was charged with stealing a bicycle pump from Woolworth's and resisting a Woolworth's employee who attempted to recover t…
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 Essential Element Of Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The delinquency petition was filed for appellant, age fourteen, for allegedly stealing a bicycle pump from Woolworth’s and for resisting a Woolworth’s employee who tried to recover the pump. Appellant moved to dismiss the latter charge on the ground that the petition failed to allege that he had subsequently been found guilty of theft, a material element of the charge. At the adjudicatory hearing, the court heard argument on the motion to dismiss and denied the motion, as well as an oral motion for judgment of acquittal based upon the insufficiency of the evidence.
We find no merit to appellant’s attack on the conviction for theft of the bicycle pump and affirm the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal.
We are compelled to agree with appellant that section 812.015(6), Florida Statutes (1983), as written requires, as an essential element of the offense of resisting a merchant, that the defendant be “subsequently found to be guilty of theft of the subject merchandise.” Although it is doubtful that the legislature intended to require a finding of guilt on the theft charge before a defendant could be charged with resisting a merchant, that is the result under the clear and unequivocal language of the statute. This will, in all probability, create speedy trial problems for prosecutors, when both crimes arise from the same incident. There is no way we can repair this statute by judicial construction. If the legislature intends for the offense of resisting a merchant to be charged simultaneously with the theft offense, it will have to amend the statute. This same construction of the statute has been reached by the Fifth District Court of Appeal in K.M.S. v. State, 402 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions to dismiss the count alleging resisting a retail merchant.
THOMPSON, ZEHMER and BAR-FIELD, JJ., concur.