E.A.P., A CHILD, 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 reversed the juvenile's adjudication of delinquency for possession of cocaine and attempted tampering with evidence because the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish the required elements of either offense.
Evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support adjudication of delinquency for constructive possession of cocaine or attempted tampering with evidence.
[1] Evidence is insufficient to support adjudication of delinquency for constructive possession of cocaine when the record fails to establish that the juvenile knew of the co…
[2] Evidence is insufficient to support adjudication of delinquency for attempted tampering with evidence when the record fails to establish that the juvenile attempted to al…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA juvenile was adjudicated delinquent based on circumstantial evidence for possession of cocaine and attempted tampering with evidence.…
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 Knowledge Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of his adjudication of delinquency based upon a determination by the trial court that he had committed what would be the offenses of possession of cocaine and attempted tampering with evidence were he an adult. He contends that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of dismissal. We agree.
The charges against appellant were based on circumstantial evidence, and the cocaine possession charge was predicated on the premise that appellant had constructive possession of the cocaine. As to the constructive possession charge, the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish that appellant knew of the presence of the cocaine, knew of its illicit nature or had the ability to exercise control over it. See, e.g., C.M. v. State, 818 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Daniels v. State, 111 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Woods v. State, 765 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); E.H. v. State, 579 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Poitier v. State, 525 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). As to the tampering charge, the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish that appellant attempted to alter, destroy, conceal or remove anything; or that he knew that an investigation was about to take place. See C.K. v. State, 753 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
We reverse the adjudications of delinquency, and remand with directions that the trial court enter judgment dismissing the amended delinquency petition.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, VAN NORTWICK and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of E.H., 579 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Woods v. State, 765 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- C.M. v. State, 818 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Poitier v. State, 525 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- C.K. v. State, 753 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)