G.O. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

G.O. v. State

606 So. 2d 452, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10369, 1992 WL 261239

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 6, 1992

DocketNo. 91-22

StatusPublished

This text of 606 So. 2d 452 (G.O. 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.O. v. State, 606 So. 2d 452, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10369, 1992 WL 261239 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

After he was suspended from junior high school, the juvenile respondent disrupted his class while it was on a field trip at a privately-owned, off-campus theatre. The resulting adjudication of delinquency is reversed because the location of the incident renders each of the statutes he was charged with violating inapplicable. Specifically (a) section 228.091(1), Florida Statutes (1989) reaches only activity “upon the campus or any other facility owned by any such school,” (b) section 228.091(2) requires a trespass “upon school property” and (c) section 877.13(1) is limited to the disruption of activities “on school board property.” See Z.B. v. State, 576 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). See generally Johnson v. State, 602 So.2d 1288 (Fla.1992); Pedersen v. Green, 105 So.2d 1 (Fla.1958).

[453]*453Accordingly, the order below is reversed with directions to discharge the respondent.

Reversed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

After he was suspended from junior high school, the juvenile respondent disrupted his class while it was on a field trip at a privately-owned, off-campus theatre. The resulting adjudication of delinquency is reversed because the location of the incident renders each of the statutes he was charged with violating inapplicable. Specifically (a) section 228.091(1), Florida Statutes (1989) reaches only activity “upon the campus or any other facility owned by any such school,” (b) section 228.091(2) requires a trespass “upon school property” and (c) section 877.13(1) is limited to the disruption of activities “on school board property.” See Z.B. v. State, 576 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). See generally Johnson v. State, 602 So.2d 1288 (Fla.1992); Pedersen v. Green, 105 So.2d 1 (Fla.1958).

[453]*453Accordingly, the order below is reversed with directions to discharge the respondent.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 So. 2d 452, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 10369, 1992 WL 261239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/go-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack