In the Interest of E. W. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In the Interest of E. W. v. State

379 So. 2d 1028, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15937

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 15, 1980

DocketNos. OO-336, OO-337

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 379 So. 2d 1028 (In the Interest of E. W. 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

In the Interest of E. W. v. State, 379 So. 2d 1028, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15937 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLS, Chief Judge.

Delinquency petitions were filed charging E. W., a juvenile, with a burglary, the theft of a calculator, and the theft of a bicycle. We find the challenge to the disposition of the first two charges to be without merit, but we reverse as to the theft of the bicycle.

The evidence established that a bicycle was missing and that the juvenile owner named in the amended petition and his mother identified a bicycle which had been recovered by the police. The evidence also established that E. W. returned home one evening with a bicycle which his mother testified was not his. There was, however, no evidence whatsoever establishing that the specific bicycle found in E. W.’s possession was the bicycle identified by the other boy and his mother. Thus, we agree with appellant’s contention that the judge should have granted the motion for judgment of acquittal as to the theft of the bicycle.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

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

MILLS, Chief Judge.

Delinquency petitions were filed charging E. W., a juvenile, with a burglary, the theft of a calculator, and the theft of a bicycle. We find the challenge to the disposition of the first two charges to be without merit, but we reverse as to the theft of the bicycle.

The evidence established that a bicycle was missing and that the juvenile owner named in the amended petition and his mother identified a bicycle which had been recovered by the police. The evidence also established that E. W. returned home one evening with a bicycle which his mother testified was not his. There was, however, no evidence whatsoever establishing that the specific bicycle found in E. W.’s possession was the bicycle identified by the other boy and his mother. Thus, we agree with appellant’s contention that the judge should have granted the motion for judgment of acquittal as to the theft of the bicycle.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

379 So. 2d 1028, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 15937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-e-w-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack