G.H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

G.H. v. State

599 So. 2d 231, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5371

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 19, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1923

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 599 So. 2d 231 (G.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

G.H. v. State, 599 So. 2d 231, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5371 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

G.H. appeals from an adjudication of delinquency for criminal mischief. For the following reasons, we reverse.

Witnesses observed G.H. running around a parked van and then running from the parking lot. The van had been deeply scratched; no witness had seen G.H. inflict the damage. There was testimony that G.H. and the family who owned the van had “bad blood” between them.

“Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt a conviction may not be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence.” McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972, 977 n. 12 (Fla.1977) (citations omitted). G.H.’s mere presence at, and flight from, the scene of the alleged crime are insufficient to support the adjudication of delinquency. E.M. v. State, 441 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); D.M. v. State, 394 So.2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); J.O. v. State, 384 So.2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge respondent with regard to this proceeding only.

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

PER CURIAM.

G.H. appeals from an adjudication of delinquency for criminal mischief. For the following reasons, we reverse.

Witnesses observed G.H. running around a parked van and then running from the parking lot. The van had been deeply scratched; no witness had seen G.H. inflict the damage. There was testimony that G.H. and the family who owned the van had “bad blood” between them.

“Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt a conviction may not be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence.” McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972, 977 n. 12 (Fla.1977) (citations omitted). G.H.’s mere presence at, and flight from, the scene of the alleged crime are insufficient to support the adjudication of delinquency. E.M. v. State, 441 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); D.M. v. State, 394 So.2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); J.O. v. State, 384 So.2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Reversed and remanded with directions to discharge respondent with regard to this proceeding only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 So. 2d 231, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gh-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack