C.C., 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.
C.C., a juvenile, appeals the trial court's denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency of evidence after being adjudicated delinquent for theft, burglary, criminal mischief, and battery. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms, finding sufficient evidence supported each conviction.
The evidence was sufficient for all charges. The evidence plainly supported active participation in the theft and burglary offenses and excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. For the battery charge, there was sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that C.C. had the requisite specific intent to commit battery.
[1] Evidence of a broken steering column, a screwdriver found in the vehicle, and the defendant's presence in the passenger seat of a stolen Jeep, observed circling the vehic…
[2] A defendant's participation in a crime can be established by evidence that excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 evidence plainly supported the court's determination that C.C. actively participated in the criminal conduct, and excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.”
Establishes the sufficiency standard for theft, burglary, and criminal mischief charges
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.C. and a friend were observed circling a Jeep in a parking lot while C.C. held a screwdriver. The Jeep's owner chased the vehicle when he saw it bei…
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 Criminal Mischief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
C.C. appeals the trial court’s denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency of evidence. The trial court adjudicated C.C. delinquent after finding him guilty of theft, burglary, criminal mischief, and battery. We affirm.
The charges of theft, burglary, and criminal mischief arose from the following facts. C.C. and a friend were observed in a parking lot circling a Jeep and looking into the Jeep’s windows. C.C. was holding a screwdriver. Later, the owner saw the Jeep being driven through the parking lot and gave chase. 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) is misplaced, as that case involved an “after-acquired passenger” who was totally unconnected to the original auto theft and burglary. See Brown, 574 So. 2d at 297.
C.C. also attacks his adjudication of delinquency for battery on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence. The battery occurred on a separate occasion on the premises of a store. C.C. argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had the specific intent to harm or touch another against his will. See § 784.03(1), Fla.Stat. (1989); Russell v. State, 373 So. 2d 97, 98 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
He contends that his contact with the victim was incidental to his effort to leave the area, and was an unintended consequence of a lawful act. See Munday v. State, 254 So. 2d 33, 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
There was conflicting evidence on whether the touching was merely incidental, within the meaning of Munday, or was done with the requisite specific intent so as to constitute a battery. There was testimony that C.C. made threats and cursed the victim before the battery occurred, and there was also testimony about the amount of force employed by C.C.
We conclude that there was evidence on which the trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that C.C. had the requisite intent and committed a battery. See Johnson v. State, 574 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Muwwakil v. State, 435 So. 2d 304, 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), review denied, 444 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1984).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.D. v. State, 882 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…dence to support a conviction of battery for spitting on an officer when testimony indicated that the defendant was angry and screaming, he admitted to giving the officer a “raspberry,” and spittle was found on the officer’s uniform); C.C. v. State, 576 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (finding that defendant’s actions of cursing and threatening the victim before the battery occurred and the amount of force used was sufficient for the trier of fact to conclude that he possessed the requisite intent for the crime…
-
Rodger v. State, 583 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…ntence appellant as a habitual offender if the requisite statutory findings are made by the court and supported by the evidence. Smith v. State, 573 So. 2d at 194. Finally, we affirm appellant’s conviction in all other respects. See C.C. v. State, 576 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). [*430] Affirmed m part, reversed m part, and remanded.…
-
Torres v. State, 907 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…[*575] PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Mohansingh v. State, 824 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); C.C. v. State, 576 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). SHARP, W., GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. G.C., 572 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1991)
- Kunta Muwwakil v. State, 435 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Russell v. State, 373 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Pilar Navarro v. Yosemite Ins. Co., 254 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Johnson v. State, 574 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Brown v. State, 574 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)