B.P., 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 grand theft of sapodillas after being found picking fruit in a grove. The appellate court reversed because the evidence was insufficient to establish the juvenile's intent to commit theft beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court reversed the adjudication of delinquency because the state failed to present evidence sufficient to establish the juvenile's intent to deprive another person of the right to or benefit from the property, as required for a theft conviction.
[1] A conviction for theft requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's intent to deprive another person of a right to or benefit from the property involved.
[2] Circumstantial evidence of intent to commit theft must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
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“the state must prove the accused's "intent to deprive another person of a right to or benefit from the property involved."”
Establishes the required mental element for theft under Florida law that the prosecution must prove.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA sixteen-year-old juvenile was asked by two men (his former newspaper delivery employers) to accompany them on a fruit-picking trip. The men stated 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 Intent To Steal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, then a sixteen year old youth, was charged in a June, 1984 petition for delinquency with grand theft of sapodillas (a tropical fruit) from a grove in Dade County. The testimony and evidence before the trial court showed that the juvenile appellant agreed to go with two men for whom he recently had worked delivering newspapers, on a trip to pick some fruit. The men told the juvenile that they planned to take the fruit to Texas and sell it there. After they had picked and paid for some fruit, one of the men stopped to speak to a worker in another grove. The juvenile did not hear the conversation, but he assumed the men had been given permission to pick sapodillas, since they started to do so. The juvenile and the two men were discovered by a grove watchman as they were picking the fruit.
Reversal is urged on the grounds that the state’s case lacked sufficient evidence to establish two of the requisite elements of grand theft: the value of the stolen fruit and the juvenile’s intent to commit the criminal offense.
We have concluded from a careful review of all of the evidence that the adjudication of delinquency must be reversed because the evidence does not support a finding of intent to commit theft. In a prosecution for theft under section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1983), the state must prove the accused’s “intent to deprive another person of a right to or benefit from the property involved.” Council v. State, 443 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). To sustain an adjudication of delinquency, proof of the juvenile’s guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. J.D.D. v. State, 268 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). While the intent required to support a conviction of theft may be established by circumstantial evidence, the proof must not only be consistent with guilt, but also inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. J.D.D. v. State, 268 So. 2d at 458.
The totality of the evidence presented in this case was not inconsistent with the reasonable hypothesis of innocence established by the juvenile’s testimony that he was merely assisting his former employers, at their request, in what he believed was a lawful endeavor. Thus, the juvenile's “unrefuted, exculpatory and not unreasonable explanation” of his actions “rendered the state’s case ... insufficient as a matter of law to establish guilt.” R.M. v. State, 450 So. 2d 897, 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (quoting R.A.L. v. State, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
In view of our holding, we find it unnecessary to discuss the remaining issue as to the sufficiency of the proof of value.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 736 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…cient as a matter of law to establish guilt. See Dellechiaie v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D 2052, 734 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); E.L.S. v. State, 547 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); M.M. v. State, 547 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); B.P. v. State, 515 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Valdez v. State, 492 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); J.J. v. State, 463 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); R.M. v. State, 450 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); R.D.S. v. State, 446 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); McNeil v. State, 433 So…
-
Bertone v. State, 870 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…in stolen property is reversed. WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur. . See Dellechiaie v. State, 734 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); E.L.S. v. State, 547 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); M.M. v. State, 547 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); B.P. v. State, 515 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Valdez v. State, 492 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); J.J. v. State, 463 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); R.M. v. State, 450 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); R.D.S. v. State, 446 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); McNeil v. State, 433 So…
-
In the Interest of M.M. v. State, 547 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…d not unreasonable explanation for the possession. McNeil v. State, 433 So. 2d 1294, 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and R.A.L. v. State, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); see also, Bunderick v. State, 528 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); B.P. v. State, 515 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); R.M. v. State, 450 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); compare J.J. v. State, 463 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (juvenile’s explanation that friend gave him recently stolen moped was not reasonable where the juvenile did not know the…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- R.M. v. State, 450 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- R. A. L. v. State, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Rodriguez v. Rattan, 402 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- In the Interest of J. D. D., Jr. v. State, 268 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Joseph H. Council v. State, 443 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)