D.B., 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.
D.B., a juvenile, appealed an adjudication of delinquency for burglary, grand theft, and criminal mischief. The court affirmed the burglary and criminal mischief convictions but reversed the grand theft conviction because the property was reported stolen before D.B.'s arrest.
The adjudication of delinquency was affirmed as to burglary and criminal mischief but reversed as to grand theft. The evidence was sufficient to prove D.B. entered the structure with intent to commit an offense and caused property damage, but D.B. could not have stolen property that was reported stolen two days before his arrest.
[1] In a circumstantial evidence case, the evidence must not only prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but also exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
[2] Evidence that a defendant was found ransacking a room is inconsistent with an explanation of mere curiosity and supports an intent to commit an offense within the structu…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In a circumstantial evidence case, the evidence must not only prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but it must also be sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating circumstantial evidence in delinquency cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.B. was found inside a victim's home ransacking a bedroom. Witnesses heard a dresser drawer crash to the floor moments before D.B.'s apprehension and…
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 Circumstantial Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
D.B. appeals an adjudication of delinquency for burglary, grand theft, and criminal mischief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
D.B. was charged with violating Section 810.02, Florida Statutes (1987), which provides, in part:
'Burglary' means entering or remaining in a structure or a conveyance with the intent to commit an offense therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the defendant is licensed or invited to enter or remain.
In a circumstantial evidence case, the evidence must not only prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but it must also be sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. T.S.J. v. State, 439 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The circumstances proved in the present case exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
The evidence that D.B. was in the process of ransacking the bedroom when the victim’s family appeared is inconsistent with D.B.’s explanation that he was there to meet some friends and was looking around because he was just being nosey. In R.A. v. State, 400 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 407 So. 2d 1105 (Fla.1981), the fact that the juvenile was found inside the principal’s office going through a desk was more than sufficient to sustain the conclusion that the juvenile intended to commit theft within the structure. On this basis, the juvenile court in the present case properly found D.B. guilty of burglary.
D.B. was also charged with violating Section 806.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp.1988), which provides in part:
A person commits the offense of criminal mischief if he willfully and maliciously injures or damages by any means any real or personal property belonging to another, including, but not limited to, the placement of graffiti thereon or other acts of vandalism thereto.
In the present case, the evidence supports the finding that D.B. was guilty of criminal mischief. Since the dresser was undeniably broken within hours of D.B.’s appearance at the house, since a witness heard a dresser drawer crashing to the floor just moments before D.B. was apprehended, and since a witness saw D.B. break the door hinge as he was trying to escape, the juvenile court properly found D.B. guilty of criminal mischief.
In conclusion, there is ample evidence to affirm the trial court’s finding that D.B. is guilty of criminal mischief and burglary. But, as the state properly concedes, the trial court erred in finding D.B. guilty of grand theft since D.B. could not have stolen the property on the day he was arrested since it was reported stolen two days earlier. Therefore, D.B. cannot be found guilty of grand theft. See R.W. v. State, 522 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Howard v. State, 515 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
For these reasons, the adjudication of delinquency under review is hereby affirmed as to the offenses of criminal mischief and burglary, but reversed as to grand theft.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of J.R.S. v. State, 569 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…r. Though only a trespass at the common law, it is now, by most statutes, made severely penal. Black’s Law Dictionary 863 (5th ed. 1979). Damage to the property of another is an essential element of the offense of criminal mischief. D.B. v. State, 559 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Valdes v. State, 510 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) review denied, State v. J.C.B., 520 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1988); Roberts v. State, 461 So. 2d 212, 214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); N.R. v. State, 452 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). How…
-
F.J.A. v. State, 710 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See D.B. v. State, 559 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); K.P.M. v. State, 446 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).…
-
T.L.S. v. State, 733 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…[*608] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Carter v. State, 469 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). See also R.A.P. v. State, 575 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); D.B. v. State, 559 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Koenig v. State, 214 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).…
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
- In the Interest of T.S.J. v. State, 439 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- R. A. v. State, 400 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Howard v. State, 515 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- R.W. v. State, 522 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)