Z.S., 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.
Z.S., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for grand theft of a motor vehicle based on evidence he pumped gas into a stolen vehicle. The appellate court reversed, holding that merely pumping gas into a stolen vehicle is insufficient to establish the possession and intent required for theft.
The evidence was insufficient to establish Z.S.'s guilt because it showed only that he pumped gas into a stolen Jeep, which does not prove either possession or intent. The trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.
[1] Possession of recently stolen property, without more, is insufficient to prove grand theft of a motor vehicle.
[2] Pumping gas into a stolen vehicle, without evidence of operating, being a passenger in, or exercising control over the vehicle, is insufficient to establish guilt for the…
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 most the evidence showed was that Z.S. pumped gas into a stolen Jeep. Consequently, there was no proof of either possession or intent.”
Core holding establishing that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the theft conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 26, 1989, Sgt. Howard found a dark maroon 1989 Jeep Cherokee that had been reported stolen. About three and one-half hours later, Howard arres…
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 Auto cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
Z.S., a juvenile, challenges an order adjudicating him delinquent based on the trial judge’s finding that he committed grand theft of a motor vehicle, a violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1989). Z.S. argues the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. We agree.
The evidence at the adjudicatory hearing revealed that on the evening of June 26, 1989, Sgt. Alan Howard found a dark maroon 1989 Jeep Cherokee alongside a roadway. The vehicle was identified as one that had been stolen. About three and one-half hours later Howard arrested Z.S., a black male whom he had seen pumping gas into a black Jeep Cherokee at a Circle K store earlier that evening. A clerk from Circle K testified that “a bunch of boys” had been at the store’s gasoline pumps on that same evening. They arrived in two vehicles, one of which she described as a “black Jeep, Bronco-type vehicle.” She described two of the youths, one white and one black, who came into the store to pay for the gas. She could not, however, identify Z.S. as the black male who came into the store.
On appeal, Z.S. posits that the state’s case is based on an inference of guilt that can arise from an accused’s possession of recently stolen property.1 He points out, however, that there was no evidence that he operated, was a passenger in, or exercised any control over the vehicle in question. He argues that the state failed to prove possession and the trial court should have granted his motion for a judgment of acquittal. The state counters that Sgt. Howard’s testimony identifying Z.S. as the person who had pumped gasoline into the stolen vehicle is sufficient to link him with the offense.
Laying aside a conflict in the evidence as to the color of the vehicle in question, there was insufficient evidence to establish that Z.S. was guilty of theft of the vehicle. The most the evidence showed was that Z.S. pumped gas into a stolen Jeep. Consequently, there was no proof of either possession or intent. See A.E. v. State, 549 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); E.L.S. v. State, 547 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
Accordingly, we reverse and order Z.S. discharged.
LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur. . Section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1989), defines theft as follows:
1) A person is guilty of theft if he knowingly obtains or uses, or endeavors to obtain or to use, the property of another with intent to, either temporarily or permanently:
(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit therefrom.
(b) Appropriate the property to his own use or to the use of any person not entitled thereto.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sunshine Bottling Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 757 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…abcock & Assoc., Inc. v. Fernandez, 706 So. 2d 916, 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The record reflects that Sunshine had a viable claim for promissory estoppel for the amounts expended in restructuring its plant. See Revlon Group, Inc. v. LJS Realty, Inc., 579 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH v. Stein, 615 N.E. 2d 115 (Ind.Ct.App.), reversed in part on other grounds, 622 N.E. 2d 163 (Ind.1993). Because the trial court erred in entering a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we reverse and rem…
-
Adams v. State, 693 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.” § 812.022(2), Fla. Stat. (1991); see Z.S. v. State, 579 So. 2d 865 (Fla. [*1032] 2d DCA 1991) (evidence that juvenile pumped gas into stolen vehicle insufficient to establish possession). The state did not present competent, substantial evidence to support Adams’ conviction for grand theft. Although the circumstan…
-
State v. E.A., 701 So. 2d 1266 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…hat 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 facts court may not determine factual issues, or con…
Authorities Cited
- E.L.S. v. State, 547 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Srenco v. Srenco, 549 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)