C.B., 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 held that the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to sustain a conviction for petit theft.
A witness testified seeing the appellant pass an unidentified object to the person found with a stolen iPod. The witness could not identify the object…
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 Petit Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
C.B. appeals an order withholding adjudication of delinquency and placing him on probation for the offense of petit theft. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of dismissal based upon insufficient evidence. We agree and reverse.
This was a circumstantial evidence case involving the theft of an iPod. The only evidence linking C.B. to the offense was one witness’s testimony that while she was in the classroom where the iPod went missing, she observed, “out of the corner of [her] eye,” C.B. pass an object to the person ultimately found to possess the stolen iPod. However, the witness admitted that she could not identify the object. Even viewed in the light most favorable to the State, this evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The trial court should have granted the dismissal motion. See generally J.B. v. State, — So.3d -, 2014 WL 837006, 39 Fla. L. Weekly D487, D488 (Fla. 4th DCA Mar. 5, 2014) (holding that fact that juvenile was seen outside store with bracelet then on sale within store did not constitute circumstantial evidence of theft); Haugabrook v. State, 827 So.2d 1065, 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversing petit theft conviction, after finding, inter alia, there was no evidence tying missing clothes to defendant).
We reverse the trial court’s order withholding adjudication of guilt and placing C.B. on probation. See A.P.R. v. State, 894 So.2d 282, 286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
REVERSED.
ORFINGER, WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- A.P.R. v. State, 894 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Haugabrook v. State, 827 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)