A.H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

A.H. v. State

577 So. 2d 699, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3083, 1991 WL 50256

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 9, 1991

DocketNo. 90-1937

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 577 So. 2d 699 (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, 577 So. 2d 699, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3083, 1991 WL 50256 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the finding of juvenile delinquency for aggravated assault [§ 784.021, Fla.Stat. (1989)] upon a holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error in denying the respondent’s motion for adjudication of non-delinquency. In particular, we conclude, contrary to the respondent’s contention, that the state established sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could find that a “deadly weapon,” i.e., one likely to produce death or great bodily harm, Goswick v. State, 143 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1962), was used in the assault committed by the respondent — to wit: a rock the size of a baseball which was thrown by the respondent at the complainant, hitting a nearby wall with a loud “boom” five to ten feet from where the complainant was standing. Compare EJ. v. State, 554 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (Cope, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 775, 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), rev. denied, 480 So.2d 1293 (Fla.1985); Wilton v. State, 455 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the finding of juvenile delinquency for aggravated assault [§ 784.021, Fla.Stat. (1989)] upon a holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error in denying the respondent’s motion for adjudication of non-delinquency. In particular, we conclude, contrary to the respondent’s contention, that the state established sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could find that a “deadly weapon,” i.e., one likely to produce death or great bodily harm, Goswick v. State, 143 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1962), was used in the assault committed by the respondent — to wit: a rock the size of a baseball which was thrown by the respondent at the complainant, hitting a nearby wall with a loud “boom” five to ten feet from where the complainant was standing. Compare EJ. v. State, 554 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (Cope, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Carter v. State, 469 So.2d 775, 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), rev. denied, 480 So.2d 1293 (Fla.1985); Wilton v. State, 455 So.2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

577 So. 2d 699, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3083, 1991 WL 50256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ah-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack