H.M. v. State

802 So. 2d 1185, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3, 2002 WL 4422
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 2, 2002·No. No. 3D01-131·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

802 So. 2d 1185 (H.M. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

James Warmington v. State of Florida
149 So. 3d 648 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2014)
F.D. v. State
927 So. 2d 936 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)