STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
IN THE INTEREST OF V. D. B., A CHILD, RESPONDENT
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 standard of proof required to adjudge a juvenile delinquent for an act constituting a crime if committed by an adult is 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
This case involves a conflict jurisdiction review of a juvenile delinquency proceeding where the charged act would be a crime if committed by an adult…
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 Conflict Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a conflict jurisdiction review of the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in the case entitled In Interest of V.D.B., a child v. State of Florida, 261 So.2d 857.
The question for decision is the standard of proof required in the adjudicatory phase of a child delinquency proceeding in a juvenile court in Florida in order to adjudge a child to be delinquent where the act of delinquency charged is one which would constitute a crime if committed by an adult.
There 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 reversed the trial court in this case. The First District Court holds that the proper standard of proof is that of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
We have carefully studied the matter and conclude, as did the First District Court of Appeal, that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368, and V. v. City of New York, 407 U.S. 203, 92 S.Ct. 1951, 32 L.Ed.2d 659 (1972), control and the standard of proof required in a case of this kind is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” See also, State v. R.E.F., a Juvenile, Fla. App., 251 So.2d 672.
Further elaboration upon the question appears unnecessary since In re Winship and V. v. City of New York, supra, and the cited District Courts of Appeal cases explicate fully the legal principles involved.
The petition for writ of certiorari is discharged.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J. B. v. State, 328 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…I am of the opinion that evidence connecting the juvenile with the alleged crime was insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence of the child by proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State of Florida v. In Interest of V.D.B., Fla.1972, 270 So. 2d 6.…
-
State v. D. H., 309 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…e partakes of the nature of a criminal proceeding rather than a proceeding in which the State is parens patriae . . . ,” citing the cases of V. v. City of New York, 407 U.S. 203, 92 S.Ct. 1951, 32 L.Ed.2d 659 (1972) and State v. V. D. B., Fla. 1972, 270 So. 2d 6. In the latter cited case, our supreme court has held the standard of proof required in a case of this kind is “ . . . ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” See, also In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368. V. v. City of New York, supra…
-
D. R. W. v. State, 271 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1972)…to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 262 So. 2d 701. The decision sought to be reviewed directly conflicts with V. D. B. v. State, 261 So. 2d 857 (Fla.App.lst 1972), recently affirmed by this Court in 270 So. 2d 6, opinion filed November 29, 1972, holding the standard of proof required in the adjudication phase of a juvenile delinquency proceeding to be the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” where the offense charged would be a crime if committe…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970)
- Ivan v. V. City of N.Y., 407 U.S. 203 (U.S. 1972)
- State v. R. E. F., 251 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Hale v. State, 261 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- In the Interest of A. J., 241 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)