M.F., 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.
The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, thus reversing the finding of guilt.
M.F. was found near a partially stripped car in an area known for car stripping, and fled when approached by police. M.F. claimed he was merely watchi…
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 Burglary Of A Conveyance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
M.F. appeals from a finding of guilt and an order withholding adjudication and imposing a term of community control following the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. For the following reasons, we reverse.
M.F. was charged with grand theft and burglary of a conveyance. At the adjudicatory hearing, the state presented evidence that a City of Miami police officer, responding to a report that a car was being stripped, had found a partially stripped Cadillac in an area “where they normally strip cars” and had seen M.F. and another male quickly leave the area. M.F. was apprehended several blocks away; he stated that he had done nothing wrong, had been “watching the other kids strip the car,” and had not been involved in the car-stripping. Upon this evidence, the trial court denied respondent’s motion for judgment of acquittal and, in doing 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 guilt as an aider and abettor.” Id. Because the state failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and failed to prove that M.F. par ticipated or aided in perpetrating the crime, see J.L.B. v. State, 396 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), we reverse.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O.B. v. State, 36 So. 3d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…739 So. 2d 672, 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)); see D.T.B., 892 So. 2d at 525. Even “a suspect’s mere presence at the scene of a crime and flight therefrom is insufficient. ...” F.B. v. State, 605 So. 2d 578, 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (citing M.F. v. State, 549 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)). However, “[fjlight can support a resisting charge if the state proves that (1) the officer had an articulable well-founded suspicion of criminal activity that justifies the officer’s detention of the defendant, and (2) the defe…
-
Morse v. State, 604 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…prints leading from the restaurant to Room 11 could be said to show appellant was at the scene of the burglary, that fact, along with his later running from Officer Gay, is insufficient to exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. M.F. v. State, 549 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA1989). Since we find suppression of the cable converter box is dispositive, the burglary conviction in Case No. 90-4 is reversed, and the cause remanded for appellant to be discharged from further liability as to that charge. VIOLATION…
-
R.M. v. State, 763 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…(1969). Moreover, appellant testified to a reasonable, unrefuted explanation for his presence in the automobile, an explanation he gave to the officer immediately after the incident and to which he testified consistently at trial. In M.F. v. State, 549 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), M.F. was seen fleeing the area in which a vehicle was being stripped. M.F. testified that he had only watched while other children stripped the car. The third district reversed the adjudication of the juvenile, holding that the s…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- J. L. B. v. State, 396 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- J.W. v. State, 467 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)