A.T., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1995-08-02
No. 94-1473
Before BARKDULL, COPE and GREEN, JJ.
658 So. 2d 662 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1995)

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.


Holding

The court held that the adjudication for culpable negligence was improper due to insufficient evidence of reckless disregard for human life. The remaining points on appeal were affirmed.


Facts & Procedural History

A.T. was adjudicated for culpable negligence following a shooting incident. The State's evidence was argued to show the conduct was accidental or care…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

We grant appellant’s motion for rehearing and/or clarification and withdraw the opinion filed on March 8, 1995 and substitute the following opinion.

A.T.’s adjudication for culpable negligence 1 is reversed where the totality of the State’s evidence indicated that A.T.’s conduct in the unfortunate shooting of his friend was purely careless or accidental in nature and not of “such a gross and flagrant character that it evidenced a reckless disregard for human life or safety equivalent to an intentional violation of the rights of others.” J.A. v. State, 593 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), quoting, Dominique v. State, 435 So. 2d 974, 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); In the Interest of J.C.D., 598 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Accordingly, on remand, A.T. must be discharged from this count.

As to A.T.’s remaining points on appeal, we find no error and affirm. See generally, Kase v. State, 581 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

Reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part.

. When this appeal initially came before us, there was no indication in the record that A.T. had either been charged or adjudicated for culpable negligence although both parties briefed and argued this issue on appeal. After the issuance of our initial decision, A.T. v. State, 20 Fla.L.Weekly D614 (Fla. 3d DCA March 8, 1995), we relinquished jurisdiction pursuant to A.T.’s motion for rehearing and/or clarification to allow the parties to supplement the record on appeal to show that A.T. had in fact been charged with and adjudicated for culpable negligence by the court below.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw