G.D. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

G.D. v. State

828 So. 2d 1075, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15504, 2002 WL 31374773

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 23, 2002·No. No. 4D01-3972·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In finding appellant, a juvenile, guilty of the delinquent act, the trial court stated, “[bjased on the totality of the circumstances and the credibility of the testimony, I find the defendant guilty as charged.” (Emphasis added). Appellant argues that the court failed to use the proper burden of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” However, “totality of the circumstances” is not a burden of proof, and the judge’s use of that phrase does not demonstrate that he used a lesser standard, but merely considered all of the evidence and circumstances. See, e.g., Sokol v. State, 217 So.2d 843, 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).

Affirmed.

WARNER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In finding appellant, a juvenile, guilty of the delinquent act, the trial court stated, “[bjased on the totality of the circumstances and the credibility of the testimony, I find the defendant guilty as charged.” (Emphasis added). Appellant argues that the court failed to use the proper burden of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” However, “totality of the circumstances” is not a burden of proof, and the judge’s use of that phrase does not demonstrate that he used a lesser standard, but merely considered all of the evidence and circumstances. See, e.g., Sokol v. State, 217 So.2d 843, 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).

Affirmed.

WARNER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

G.D. v. State, 828 So. 2d 1075, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 15504, 2002 WL 31374773 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

828 So. 2d 1075 (G.D. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related