A. R. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A. R. v. State

393 So. 2d 1174, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19485

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 1981

DocketNos. 80-981, 80-982

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 393 So. 2d 1174 (A. R. v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A. R. v. State, 393 So. 2d 1174, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19485 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PEARSON, TILLMAN, Associate Judge.

These consolidated appeals are by the designated juveniles (A.R. and F.M.) from their respective adjudications as delinquents. The findings by the trial judge arose from a joint trial and the evidence as to each appellant is the same. We reverse upon a holding that a prima facie case was not here presented. See Fisk v. State, 138 Fla. 815, 190 So. 10 (1939); State v. Graham, 238 So.2d 618 (Fla.1970); Gilbert v. State, 270 So.2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); J. O. and R. G. v. State, 384 So.2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

The State urges that the adjudications ought to be affirmed upon a holding that the circumstances were such that the possession of recently stolen property was not satisfactorily explained. See Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1979). This determination must initially be made by the trier of fact and will only be reversed upon appeal where clearly erroneous. However, where the unrefuted explanation is such that the circumstantial evidence of guilt by reason of possession is also susceptible to the hypothesis of innocence, we must reverse. See Fisk v. State, supra.

Our reading of this record brings these cases clearly within the cited rule of law. The law does not deal in probabilities, but in proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. See Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629 (Fla.1956); Fisk v. State, supra.

Accordingly, the adjudications appealed are reversed with directions to discharge the defendants.

Reversed with directions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PEARSON, TILLMAN, Associate Judge.

These consolidated appeals are by the designated juveniles (A.R. and F.M.) from their respective adjudications as delinquents. The findings by the trial judge arose from a joint trial and the evidence as to each appellant is the same. We reverse upon a holding that a prima facie case was not here presented. See Fisk v. State, 138 Fla. 815, 190 So. 10 (1939); State v. Graham, 238 So.2d 618 (Fla.1970); Gilbert v. State, 270 So.2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); J. O. and R. G. v. State, 384 So.2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

The State urges that the adjudications ought to be affirmed upon a holding that the circumstances were such that the possession of recently stolen property was not satisfactorily explained. See Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1979). This determination must initially be made by the trier of fact and will only be reversed upon appeal where clearly erroneous. However, where the unrefuted explanation is such that the circumstantial evidence of guilt by reason of possession is also susceptible to the hypothesis of innocence, we must reverse. See Fisk v. State, supra.

Our reading of this record brings these cases clearly within the cited rule of law. The law does not deal in probabilities, but in proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. See Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629 (Fla.1956); Fisk v. State, supra.

Accordingly, the adjudications appealed are reversed with directions to discharge the defendants.

Reversed with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 So. 2d 1174, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-r-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack