A.H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A.H. v. State

428 So. 2d 754, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18916

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 25, 1983

DocketNo. 82-1879

StatusPublished

This text of 428 So. 2d 754 (A.H. 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.H. v. State, 428 So. 2d 754, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18916 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

RYDER, Judge.

The state’s case presented below portrays a complete absence of evidence demonstrating that A.H. was the perpetrator of the offense of grand theft. Therefore, the trial court should have granted A.H.’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case, and certainly should have granted such at the close of all the evidence. Failure to do so was error. R.D. v. State, 426 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); T.M. v. State, 415 So.2d 904 (Fla.3d DCA 1982) and D.M. v. State, 394 So.2d 520 (Fla.3d DCA 1981).

Furthermore, the evidence was insufficient to justify an adjudication of delinquency based upon the premise that A.H. aided and abetted in the commission of a grand theft. J.L.B. v. State, 396 So.2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Therefore, we REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court with instructions to set aside the orders of adjudication and commitment. The trial court is further instructed to discharge A.H. from the cause.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

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

RYDER, Judge.

The state’s case presented below portrays a complete absence of evidence demonstrating that A.H. was the perpetrator of the offense of grand theft. Therefore, the trial court should have granted A.H.’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case, and certainly should have granted such at the close of all the evidence. Failure to do so was error. R.D. v. State, 426 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); T.M. v. State, 415 So.2d 904 (Fla.3d DCA 1982) and D.M. v. State, 394 So.2d 520 (Fla.3d DCA 1981).

Furthermore, the evidence was insufficient to justify an adjudication of delinquency based upon the premise that A.H. aided and abetted in the commission of a grand theft. J.L.B. v. State, 396 So.2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Therefore, we REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court with instructions to set aside the orders of adjudication and commitment. The trial court is further instructed to discharge A.H. from the cause.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

428 So. 2d 754, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ah-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack