M.R., 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a juvenile's delinquency adjudication for simple battery based on circumstantial evidence that the officer saw the juvenile in a throwing motion and was then struck in the head, despite the officer never seeing the actual object thrown.
Circumstantial evidence that a juvenile was observed in a throwing motion immediately before an officer was struck in the head constitutes sufficient evidence to support a delinquency adjudication for simple battery.
[1] Circumstantial evidence of a throwing motion immediately preceding a strike to an officer's head, without direct observation of the object thrown, may constitute sufficie…
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 intelligence“when I was looking at [respondent], I got hit in the head with what I believe was a rock. It felt like a rock. And I heard the rock hit the ground, and it sounded like a rock”
Officer Gonzalez's testimony describing the moment he was struck after observing the juvenile in a throwing motion.
A police officer walking a beat at 3:00 a.m. in Coconut Grove observed the juvenile M.R. seven to ten feet away in the midst of a throwing motion and …
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 Burden Of Proof (Beyond A Reasonable Doubt) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the respondent M.R. from an adjudication of delinquency and dispositional order for the offense of simple battery. The sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying the respondent’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
We affirm based on a holding that the testimony of the arresting police officer, Juan Gonzalez of the City of Miami Police Department, constituted sufficient circumstantial evidence upon which a trier of fact could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent committed a battery upon the officer. Officer Gonzalez testified that while he was walking a police beat in the Coconut Grove area of Miami at 3:00 a.m., he happened to turn his head toward the rear and saw the respondent seven to ten feet away in the midst of a throwing motion at “the tail end of a throw” (Tr. 6).
He further testified that immediately thereafter “when I was looking at [respondent], I got hit in the head with what I believe was a rock. It felt like a rock. And I heard the rock hit the ground, and it sounded like a rock,” (Tr. 6), resulting in a bump on the right side of the officer’s forehead. Although (1) the respondent denied throwing a rock at the officer and so testified below, as did three of his friends who were with him at the time, and (2) the officer did not actually see a rock or missile in respondent’s hands, we conclude that the officer’s testimony constituted sufficient circumstantial evidence upon which to predicate the finding of delinquency for the offense of simple battery. State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 189 (Fla.1989); Toole v. State, 472 So. 2d 1174, 1176 (Fla.1985).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delandro v. Am's. Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 674 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…rial court entered a summary judgment of foreclosure and this appeal follows.1 On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the burden to show the nonexistence of any disputed issues of material fact. See Ramos v. Wright Superior, Inc., 610 So. 2d 46, 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Where, as here, the nonmoving party has asserted matters by way of affirmative defense, it is the responsibility of the moving party, in this-case the lender, to demonstrate that there is no disputed issue of material fact wi…
-
Prof'l Roofing & Sales, Inc. v. Flemmings, 138 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ial court to adjudicate disputed fact issues rather than passing them on to a jury as it would an affirmative defense.” Thus, determining such an immunity claim on a motion for summary judgment is not appropriate. See Ramos v. Wright Superior, Inc., 610 So. 2d 46, 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (confirming that “summary judgment is proper only when there is a complete absence of genuine issues of material fact”). Rather, the appropriate procedure for determining such a claim, we believe, is that enunciated in Peterso…
-
Tisdale v. BP OIL Co., 622 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…summary judgment should be cautiously granted in negligence actions. Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985); Boll v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); Stazenski v. Tennant Co., 617 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Ramos v. Wright Superior, Inc., 610 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Allen v. Orlando Regional Medical Center, 606 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Williams v. Madden, 588 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); U-Haul Co. of East Bay v. Meyer, 586 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Brooks v. Phillip Watts En…
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
- State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)
- Toole v. State, 472 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 1985)