JAMES EARL BROWN, 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 affirmed Brown's conviction for grand theft of a motor vehicle, holding that unlike a mere after-acquired passenger, Brown's presence at the theft scene and participation in the getaway vehicle demonstrated sufficient evidence of his involvement in the theft.
A defendant who is present at the scene of a vehicle theft, participates in the getaway by riding in the stolen vehicle, and flees when police pursue is sufficiently implicated in the theft to support a conviction, distinguishing him from a mere after-acquired passenger.
[1] A defendant present at the scene of a vehicle theft who participates in the getaway by boarding the stolen vehicle and fleeing from police is sufficiently implicated in t…
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 intelligenceBrown was riding as a passenger in a van with three others when one passenger selected a car to steal in a movie theater parking lot. Two passengers 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 Grand Theft Of A Motor Vehicle cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s conviction for grand theft of a motor vehicle. We also conclude our decision is consistent with the very recent decision of the supreme court in State v. G.C., 572 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1991). In G.C., the defendant was merely an “after acquired passenger”. When G.C. accepted a ride in the stolen car he suspected it had been stolen because of the broken steering column. In the present case, the appellant is not just an after acquired passenger. Prior to the theft, appellant had been riding around with three others as a passenger in a van. They drove into a movie theater parking lot and one of the other passengers picked out a car to steal. Parking the van four spaces away, two others got out of the van, broke into the car and drove it away, with the van following. Both vehicles came to a stop around the corner from the movie theater. Appellant then got out of the van and got into the stolen car as a passenger. Later, when police observed suspicious activity involving the car and began to follow it, the car sped up and a high-speed chase ensued. When the car appeared to be heading toward a pole, the appellant and the others jumped out of the moving car and ran away. Unlike G.C., where no view of the evidence could implicate the defendant in the theft, the evidence here is sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.C. v. State, 576 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…The vehicle halted and C.C. exited the Jeep from the passenger’s side. The Jeep’s steering column was broken and a screwdriver was found in the vehicle. The evidence was sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal. See Brown v. State, 574 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The evidence plainly supported the court’s determination that C.C. actively participated in the criminal conduct, and excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. C.C.’s reliance on State v. G.C., 572 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1991…
Authorities Cited
- State v. G.C., 572 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1991)