D. R. W., A MINOR CHILD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 in the adjudication phase of a juvenile delinquency proceeding, where the offense charged would be a crime if committed by an adult, is the criminal standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
The case involves a petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District. The decision conflicted with…
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 Standard Of Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari 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 committed by an adult.
In view of our recent decision in State v. V. D. B.1 resolving the very question here presented, it is unnecessary to have any arguments or briefs on the merits in this cause and they are, therefore, dispensed with.
Accordingly, certiorari is granted, the decision sought to be reviewed is quashed to the extent inconsistent with State v. V. D. B., supra, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of G. H. v. State, 271 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…not met by the state. We agree with appellant’s assessment of the requisite burden of proof of the state in light of the recent Florida Supreme Court opinions in the cases of State v. V. D. B., Fla.1972, 270 So. 2d 6 and D. R. W. v. State, Fla.1972, 271 So. 2d 114. However, we are of the opinion that the required burden of proof was met by the state in the instant cause. Therefore, having concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated, the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
D. R. W. v. State, 272 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…order of the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida, by its opinion and judgment filed December 13, 1972 (271 So. 2d 114) and mandate now lodged in this court, quashed this court’s judgment to the extent considered by the said judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida; Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on June…
Authorities Cited
- State v. In the Interest of V. D. B., 270 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1972)
- Hale v. State, 261 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- D. R. W. v. State, 262 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)