PAUL ELBERT BRONER, 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 held that the undisputed facts were insufficient as a matter of law to establish that the defendant committed theft.
The defendant entered the victim's home, and while the victim was absent for ten minutes, a VCR went missing. A witness saw the defendant leave the re…
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 Grand Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Paul Broner appeals his conviction for grand theft.1 We reverse. Broner, a nephew of the alleged victim, obtained access to her home by asking to use the telephone. The aunt thereafter went upstairs for approximately ten minutes. When she returned Broner was gone, the rear door of the residence was unlocked, and a videocassette recorder was missing. A witness saw Broner leave the residence through the rear door, but with nothing in his hands. The VCR was never recovered.
We find that these undisputed facts are, as a matter of law, insufficient to establish that Broner committed the theft. Cf. Jenkins v. State, 342 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Accordingly the trial court erred in denying Broner’s motion to dismiss.2
Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and PARKER, JJ., concur. . § 812.014(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1985).
. This case was disposed of below via Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miakkar Brown v. State, 85 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…, the court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal, either at the close of the state’s case or the close of all the evidence. Appellant primarily relies on Jenkins v. State, 342 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), Broner v. State, 559 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), and S.R.W. v. State, 725 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), to support his position that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Although in each case the appellate court found the evidence insufficient to support a…
-
State v. E.A., 701 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ling that no issues of material fact existed and that the undisputed material facts — E.A.’s presence at the crime scene and his subsequent statements— failed to establish a prima facie case of guilt for grand theft against E.A. See Broner v. State, 559 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Z.S. v. State, 579 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.085(a)(6). Cf. State v. Gutierrez, 649 So. 2d 926, 928 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(where affidavits and depositions filed on motion to dismiss create material disputed fa…
Authorities Cited
- Colonial Press OF Miami, Inc. v. Roberts, 342 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Jenkins v. State, 342 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)