IN THE INTEREST OF A. J.
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 juvenile delinquency adjudication for stabbing a police officer, holding that substantial evidence supported the finding even under a reasonable doubt standard, and that Winship's jury trial requirement did not apply because Florida law permitted the juvenile to elect jury trial in criminal court.
A juvenile adjudication of delinquency for stabbing a police officer is affirmed where substantial evidence supports the finding, and the juvenile's failure to invoke the statutory right to jury trial in criminal court does not render the proceeding unconstitutional.
[1] A juvenile's failure to invoke the statutory right to elect jury trial in criminal court does not render a delinquency adjudication unconstitutional under In re Winship w…
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 intelligenceA juvenile was identified by a police officer as the person who stabbed him in the back during an officer's attempt to quell a spectator brawl at a pu…
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 Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal on behalf of a juvenile is from an order of the juvenile and domestic relations court of Dade County adjudicating her to be a delinquent and committing her to the Dade County detention home for a period not to exceed six months. The juvenile was identified by a police officer as the one who stabbed him in the back while he and other officers were attempting to quell a spectator brawl at a public school football game. The contentions presented on behalf of the appellant have been considered in the light of the record and briefs and are found to be without merit. Although in the proceeding held under § 39.02 Fla.Stat, F.S.A., proof beyond a reasonable doubt was not required, the record discloses there was competent substantial evidence which in our view was sufficient to support the decision even if that higher quantum of proof had been requisite. The case of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368, cited by the appellant, which dealt with questions as to the right of a juvenile to a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt vis-a-vis the New York juvenile court statute is not applicable here. Contrary to the situation in New York, under Florida law the way was open to the juvenile to have a jury trial, with the higher quantum of proof, at her election, since § 39.02(6) (b) provides that a juvenile of the age of the one involved here, joined by parent or counsel, could have demanded to be tried before a jury in the criminal court in which the (felony) offense would be triable if committed by an adult.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. In the Interest of V. D. B., 270 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1972)…here is a conflict of decisions upon the stated question in Florida requiring us to exercise our conflict jurisdiction to resolve conflict. The trial judge in this case, and the Third District Court of Appeal in the case of In the Interest of A. J., 241 So. 2d 439, hold that the standard of proof to adjudicate a juvenile a delinquent for having committed an offense which if committed by an adult would constitute a crime is the “preponderance of evidence.” The First District Court of Appeal disagrees, and has…
-
In the Interest of J. D. D., Jr. v. State, 268 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…stain an adjudication of delinquency. To like effect and supporting this view are the cases of In the Interest of V.D.B., Fla. App.1972, 261 So. 2d 857, and State v. R.E.F., Fla.App.1971, 251 So. 2d 672; contra, In the Interest of J., Fla.App. 1970, 241 So. 2d 439. V. v. City of New York, 1972, 407 U.S. 203, 92 S.Ct. 1951, 32 L.Ed.2d 659, involved an adjudication of delinquency based on a preponderance of the evidence. The case held that the Winship standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was to be given…
-
In the Interest v. D. B., 261 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…ng the appellant child guilty of the act charged which resulted in an adjudication of delinquency. In doing so, the trial court apparently relied on the decision rendered by the Third District Court of Appeal in the case of In the Interest of A. J., 241 So. 2d 439. In holding that the standard of proof required under the Florida juvenile court act was that of a “preponderance of evidence”, the Third District Court distinguished In re Winship, supra, by saying: “. . . The case of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358,…
Authorities Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970)