T.C., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
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 reversed a juvenile's petit theft conviction because the trial court improperly admitted lay witness opinion testimony that the appellant was acting as a "lookout," and the remaining evidence was insufficient to support guilt.
Lay witness testimony characterizing a juvenile's conduct as acting as a "lookout" constitutes improper opinion evidence inadmissible under Florida Statute § 90.701 and, when excluded, leaves insufficient evidence to support a petit theft conviction.
[1] Lay witness testimony that a juvenile was acting as a "lookout" during a theft constitutes improper opinion evidence under Florida Statute § 90.701 and is inadmissible.
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 intelligenceOn October 24, 1988, a neighbor witnessed W.C. steal a bicycle from the victim's house while the appellant and another boy rode bicycles in figure eig…
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
GRIFFIN, Judge.
This is the appeal of the adjudication of guilt of a juvenile for petit theft.
Appellant was arrested on October 24, 1988 and charged with theft of a bicycle. At the adjudicatory hearing, the principal witness for the state was a neighbor of the victim. According to his testimony, the appellant and two other boys entered the victim’s neighborhood on bicycles around noon on October 24, 1988 and rode by the victim’s house. W.C., one of the boys, then turned around and rode back towards the victim’s house, discarded his bicycle, entered the victim’s premises and took the bike. As he left the victim’s premises, he was confronted by the neighbor, whereupon he dropped the bike and ran off.
The neighbor further testified that the appellant was with another boy down the street about a block from the house when the incident occurred, in sight of W.C., and that they were riding their bicycles in figure eights. Over vigorous objection by the defense, he was further permitted to testify that appellant and the other boy were acting as “lookouts” for W.C. We reverse the conviction for petit theft because the testimony by the neighbor that T.C. was a “lookout” was improper opinion evidence and should not have been admitted. § 90.701, Fla.Stat. (1987). See Knight v. State, 512 So. 2d 922, 929 (Fla.1987); In re A.R., 460 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). The remaining evidence was insufficient to support the finding of guilt. See J.W. v. State, 467 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); C.P.P. v. State, 479 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
REVERSED.
COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kight v. State, 512 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1987)
- J.W. v. State, 467 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Install, Inc. v. Bussey, 479 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- In the Interest of A.R., 460 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)