GEORGE HALL, 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.
George Hall was convicted of grand theft under a principals theory based solely on his presence as a getaway driver. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the State failed to prove Hall had prior knowledge of the theft or conscious intent to facilitate it.
The conviction must be reversed because the State failed to prove the essential elements of principals liability. Mere presence at the scene, knowledge that a crime occurred, and providing a getaway are insufficient without evidence of prior knowledge of the criminal plan and conscious intent to facilitate the crime.
[1] To convict under a principals theory, the State must prove the defendant had a conscious intent that the criminal act be done and took some action intended to incite, cau…
[2] Mere knowledge that an offense is being committed, presence at the scene, and flight are insufficient to establish participation with the requisite criminal intent for a…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 defendant had a conscious intent that the criminal act be done and ... the defendant did some act or said some word which was intended to and which did incite, cause, encourage, assist, or advise the other person or persons to actually commit or attempt to commit the crime.”
Establishes the required elements to convict under a principals theory
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo women took cosmetic products from a CVS Pharmacy and were observed getting into a truck driven by the defendant Hall. The defendant had backed his…
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 Accessory After The Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant, George Hall, appeals his conviction for grand theft, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Finding merit in Hall’s argument, we reverse.
The State sought to convict the defendant of grand theft under a principals theory after two women took cosmetic products from a CVS Pharmacy and were observed getting into a truck driven by the defendant. To convict under a principals theory, the State is required to prove that “ ‘the defendant had a conscious intent that the criminal act be done and ... the defendant did some act or said some word which was intended to and which did incite, cause, encourage, assist, or advise the other person or persons to actually commit or attempt to commit the crime.’ ” Smith v. State, 76 So.3d 1056, 1058 n. 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Crim.) 3.5(a)). “[T]he getaway driver who has prior knowledge of the criminal plan and is ‘waiting to help the robbers escape’ ” is clearly guilty of the robbery under a principals theory. Staten v. State, 519 So.2d 622, 624 (Fla.1988) (quoting Enmund v. State, 399 So.2d 1362, 1370 (Fla.1981), reversed on other grounds, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982)), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Bowen v. State, 791 So.2d 44, 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (emphasis added). But, “ ‘[n]either mere knowledge that an offense is being committed nor presence at the scene of the crime and flight therefrom are sufficient to establish participation with the requisite criminal intent.’ ” Sanders v. State, 563 So.2d 781, 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (quoting Saffor v. State, 558 So.2d 69, 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)).
In the instant case, while there was evidence from which a jury might have concluded that the defendant became aware of the crime after it was committed, there was no evidence the defendant had any prior knowledge of a criminal plan or had a conscious intent that the robbery be committed. The State attempted to use the fact that the defendant backed his truck into the parking space at the CVS as a sign that he must have known of the attempted theft beforehand. This rather common method of parking a truck in a parking space sheds no light on whether the defendant had prior knowledge that his passengers intended to commit a crime once inside of the CVS store. Likewise, the fact that license plates had been removed from the truck when it was spotted shortly after the incident is not probative of the defendant’s prior knowledge of the theft and his intent that it be committed.1
Reversed and Remanded.
GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Alfonso-Roche v. State, 199 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…criminal act be done and ... the defendant did some act or said some word which was intended to and which did incite, cause, encourage, assist, or advise the other person or persons to actually commit or attempt to commit the crime.” Hall v. State, 100 So. 3d 288, 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (omission in original) (quoting Smith v. State, 76 So. 3d 1056, 1058 n. 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)). The essential elements of grand theft of a motor vehicle are the following: (1) [T]he knowing and unlawful obtaining or use, or…
-
Grandison v. State, 160 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…act be done and ... the defendant did some act or said some word which was intended to and which did incite, cause, encourage, assist, or advise the other person or persons to actually commit or at [*94] tempt to commit the crime.’”” Hall v. State, 100 So. 3d 288, 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Smith v. State, 76 So. 3d 1056, 1058 n. 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)). “Neither mere knowledge that an offense is being committed nor presence at the scene of the crime and flight therefrom are sufficient to establish part…
-
Stills v. State, 154 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…ve actually possessed a firearm if you believe that he was a principal to the crime charged, who did not personally possess a firearm.” In light of the jury's verdict, the parties agree that Appellant was convicted as a principal. See Hall v. State, 100 So. 3d 288, 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ("To convict under a principals theory, the State is required to prove that 'the defendant had a conscious intent that the criminal act be done and ... the defendant did some act or said some word which was intended to and w…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (U.S. 1982)
- Staten v. State, 519 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 1988)
- Enmund v. State, 399 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 1981)
- Bowen v. State, 791 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Sanders v. State, 563 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Smith v. State, 76 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Saffor v. State, 558 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)