IN THE INTEREST OF M.M., A CHILD
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.
A defendant convicted of attempted residential burglary challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conviction. The appellate court reversed, holding that the state failed to prove the essential element of ownership of the structure as alleged in the charging document, which is a fatal defect in a burglary prosecution.
The state failed to prove ownership as alleged because a codefendant's testimony that the defendant did not know the owner's identity and lacked consent does not establish that the alleged owner had a superior possessory right over the defendant, nor does it identify the offense sufficiently to protect against double jeopardy. Failure to prove ownership as alleged is fatal to a burglary conviction.
[1] A conviction for burglary requires proof of knowing entry into a structure, knowledge that the entry is without permission, and criminal intent to commit an offense withi…
[2] Ownership of the structure is a material element of the crime of burglary and must be proven as alleged to support a conviction.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“ownership of the building or structure is a material element of the crime and must be proven as alleged in order to support a conviction for burglary”
Establishes that ownership is a required element that must be proven as specifically alleged in the charge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with and convicted of attempted residential burglary of a townhouse. The state alleged the townhouse was owned by Chris Harris b…
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 Proof Of Ownership cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with and convicted of attempted residential burglary. At the end of the state’s case and again at the close of the evidence, appellant moved for judgment of acquittal. The trial court denied the motion. A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence. The standard for this court’s review is whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the verdict. Williams v. State, 386 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1980). A conviction for the crime of burglary requires proof of three essential elements: (1) knowing entry into a structure; (2) knowledge that such entry is without permission; and (3) criminal intent to commit an offense within such structure. § 810.02, Fla.Stat. (1989). Additionally, ownership of the building or structure is a material element of the crime and must be proven as alleged in order to support a conviction for burglary. Smith v. State, 96 Fla. 30, 117 So. 377 (1928); Sifford v. State, 202 So. 2d 14 (Fla.1967); In the Interest of M.E., 370 So. 2d 795 (Fla.1979); Kirkland v. State, 366 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (failure to plead and prove ownership is fatal to the state’s case on burglary).
The two reasons for requiring proof of ownership or custody are first, to show that the building was not the property of the accused, and second, to identify the offense sufficiently to protect the accused from a second prosecution for the same offense. In the Interest of M.E., 370 at 796-797.
Ownership for the purposes of charging burglary is not the same as ownership in property law since burglary is a disturbance to habitable security and not to the fee. [Actual ownership is not required, rather] ownership means any possession which is rightful as against the burglar and is satisfied by proof of special or temporary ownership, possession, or control.
Id. at 797.
Thus, the state can meet its burden of proving ownership by simply establishing a possessory right of the alleged victim superior to that of the accused. O’Bryan v. State, 359 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Appellant argues that the state failed to prove the essential element of ownership in this case.
The state alleged that the owner of the townhouse was Chris Harris, but it did not call Harris as a witness or anyone else claiming rightful possession. The state presented only the testimony of codefend-ant Anthony Butts who stated that they did not know to whom the house belonged and that they did not have permission to enter. That testimony, appellant argues, is insufficient to prove ownership as it was alleged in the petition for adjudication. Appellee, on the other hand, argues that the testimony was sufficient to establish ownership. Thus, this court must determine whether the allegation that the townhouse was owned by a Chris Harris was proven by a codefendant’s testimony that appellant did not know the owner’s identity and did not have consent to enter the house.
Clearly, the codefendant’s testimony does not establish that Chris Harris had an interest in the property superior to the appellant’s. While it may tend to prove that the townhouse was not appellant’s property, it does not identify the offense sufficiently to protect the accused from a second prosecution for the same offense.
Thus,, the twofold purpose for requiring allegation and proof of ownership is not satisfied by the evidence adduced in this case. It therefore cannot be said that the state proved its allegation of ownership as laid. Failure to do so is fatal to the state’s case. Kirkland v. State, 366 So. 2d 871; O’Bryan v. State, 359 So. 2d 545.
We therefore reverse the conviction and remand with instructions to discharge appellant.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.S.S. v. State, 850 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2003)…that in the context of a private building,or an automobile, the State must present evidence as to the owner or possessor of the property in order to prove a burglary. See L.D.S. v. State, 784 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); In the Interest of M.M., 571 So. 2d 112 [(Fla. 4th DCA 1990)]. Moreover, in this case, we are not required to decide whether we agree with the analysis of the Third District in [A.L. v. State, 359 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) ], because that case involved an unnamed budding under circums…
-
L.D.S. v. State, 784 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ust be proven as alleged in the detention petition or information, since it is a material element of the crime. In Interest of M.E., 370 So. 2d 795, 796 (Fla.1979). See D.P. v. State, 656 So. 2d 286, 286-287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); In Interest of M.M., 571 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). As the State faded to prove the essential element of ownership of the burglarized vehicle, L.D.S.’s adjudication of delinquency for burglary and petit theft must be reversed. The decision to deny the motion for judgment of acqu…
-
D.S.S. v. State, 806 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…la. 3d DCA 1978). In A.L., an adjudication of delinquency was reversed because the State failed to prove that an athletic room was the property of the Dade County Parks and Recreation Department. 359 So. 2d 583. As explained in In Interest of M.M., 571 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990): [*556] A conviction for the crime of burglary requires proof of three essential elements: (1) knowing entry into a structure; (2) knowledge that such entry is without permission; and (3) criminal intent to commit an offense with…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roy Smith alias Tom Green v. State, 96 Fla. 30 (Fla. 1928)
- Williams v. State, 386 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1980)
- In the Interest of M. E., 370 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1979)
- O'Bryan v. State, 359 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Guyton v. State, 202 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Sifford v. State, 202 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Kirkland v. State, 366 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)