YOUNG
v.
STATE
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.
Appellant Young was cited for failing to yield while making a left turn. At trial, the State presented no evidence identifying Young as the driver of the vehicle involved in the infraction. The appellate court reversed her conviction, holding that identification of the alleged offender is a necessary element in every infraction case and, absent such evidence, acquittal is warranted.
The trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss and in finding Appellant guilty because identification of the alleged offender is a necessary element in every infraction case, and absent evidence identifying the appellant as the driver, acquittal is warranted. Appellant's conviction is reversed.
[1] Identification of the alleged offender as the perpetrator of a traffic infraction is a necessary element in every infraction case.
[2] If there is insufficient evidence identifying the alleged offender, acquittal is warranted.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 identification of an alleged offender 'as the perpetrator of [a] traffic infraction is a necessary element in every infraction case.'”
Establishes that proving the defendant was the driver is a required element of every traffic infraction prosecution
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Ashanti Patressa Young was issued a traffic citation for failing to yield to oncoming traffic while making a left turn in violation of secti…
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 Insufficient Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Town of Jupiter Police 210 Military Trail Jupiter, FL 33458 [email protected]
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Ashanti Patressa Young ("Appellant") was issued a traffic citation for failing to yield to oncoming traffic while making a left turn, in violation of section 316.122, Florida Statutes. Appellant proceeded to trial where the State submitted no evidence establishing that Appellant drove the vehicle when the alleged infraction occurred. At trial, Appellant argued an oral motion to dismiss, contending that the citation should be dismissed because no evidence admitted at trial established Appellant drove the vehicle when the alleged infraction occurred. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and entered a final disposition adjudicating Appellant guilty of the infraction. Appellant argues, and we agree, that the trial court erred in denying Appellant's oral motion to dismiss and in finding Appellant guilty of violating section 316.122, Florida Statutes. The identification of an alleged offender "as the perpetrator of [a] traffic infraction is a necessary element in every infraction case." Meisel v. State, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 235b (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. Feb. 2003). "If there is insufficient evidence identifying the alleged offender . . . acquittal is warranted...." Id. Here, because no evidence admitted at trial established that Appellant drove the vehicle when the alleged infraction occurred, the trial court erred in denying Appellants oral motion to dismiss and in subsequently finding Appellant guilty of violating section 316.122, Florida Statutes. Id. Accordingly, Appellant's conviction is REVERSED.
J. MARX, BLANC, and FRENCH, JJ., concur. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
ASHANTI PATRESSA YOUNG, Appellant,
APPELLATE DIVISION (CIVIL): AY CASE NO.: 502017AP000011CAXXMB L.T. NO.: 502016TR146343AXXXNB
V.
Opinion/Decision filed: JAN 1 8 2018
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee(s).