E.B. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

E.B. v. State

568 So. 2d 548, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8317, 1990 WL 164885

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 30, 1990

DocketNo. 90-170

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 568 So. 2d 548 (E.B. 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

E.B. v. State, 568 So. 2d 548, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8317, 1990 WL 164885 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

E.B., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for aggravated battery with an automobile under the theory that he aided and abetted the actual perpetrator of the offense. The state correctly concedes it failed to prove: (1) E.B. intended that the crime be committed and (2) E.B. assisted the actual perpetrator in committing the crime. J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); T.J.T. v. State, 460 So.2d 508, 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Staten v. State, 519 So.2d 622, 624 (Fla.1988). There is no direct evidence that E.B., a passenger in the car, intended to participate in the crime or that he encouraged or assisted the actual perpetrator in driving the car toward the victim. See T.H. v. State, 554 So.2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The circumstantial evidence of intent — E. B.’s presence in the car — does not exclude the reasonable hypothesis of innocence, namely, that he merely witnessed the crime. W.B. v. State, 554 So.2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Valdez v. State, 504 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); C.P.P. v. State, 479 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); J.W. v. State; A.Y.G. v. State, 414 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Douglas v. State, 214 So.2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); see State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187 (Fla.1989). Accordingly, we reverse the adjudication of delinquency for battery with an automobile.

Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge E.B..

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

BASKIN, Judge.

E.B., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for aggravated battery with an automobile under the theory that he aided and abetted the actual perpetrator of the offense. The state correctly concedes it failed to prove: (1) E.B. intended that the crime be committed and (2) E.B. assisted the actual perpetrator in committing the crime. J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); T.J.T. v. State, 460 So.2d 508, 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Staten v. State, 519 So.2d 622, 624 (Fla.1988). There is no direct evidence that E.B., a passenger in the car, intended to participate in the crime or that he encouraged or assisted the actual perpetrator in driving the car toward the victim. See T.H. v. State, 554 So.2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The circumstantial evidence of intent — E. B.’s presence in the car — does not exclude the reasonable hypothesis of innocence, namely, that he merely witnessed the crime. W.B. v. State, 554 So.2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Valdez v. State, 504 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); C.P.P. v. State, 479 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); J.W. v. State; A.Y.G. v. State, 414 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Douglas v. State, 214 So.2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); see State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187 (Fla.1989). Accordingly, we reverse the adjudication of delinquency for battery with an automobile.

Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge E.B..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 So. 2d 548, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 8317, 1990 WL 164885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eb-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack