H.M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

H.M. v. State

802 So. 2d 1185, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3, 2002 WL 4422

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 2, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-131

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 802 So. 2d 1185 (H.M. 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

H.M. v. State, 802 So. 2d 1185, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3, 2002 WL 4422 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The respondent, H.M., appeals from his adjudication of delinquency for burglary. As the State properly concedes, the trial court should have granted the respondent’s motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to the burglary count where there was no evidence refuting his reasonable hypothesis of innocence that he was only an onlooker or mere witness to a crime. J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(“Presence at the scene of the offense and flight from the scene is legally insufficient to establish appellant’s guilt as an aider and abettor.”). Instead, as the parties acknowledged at oral argument, the trial court should have entered an adjudication of delinquency for trespass.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

The respondent, H.M., appeals from his adjudication of delinquency for burglary. As the State properly concedes, the trial court should have granted the respondent’s motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to the burglary count where there was no evidence refuting his reasonable hypothesis of innocence that he was only an onlooker or mere witness to a crime. J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(“Presence at the scene of the offense and flight from the scene is legally insufficient to establish appellant’s guilt as an aider and abettor.”). Instead, as the parties acknowledged at oral argument, the trial court should have entered an adjudication of delinquency for trespass.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

802 So. 2d 1185, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3, 2002 WL 4422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hm-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack