In the Interest of M. M.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In the Interest of M. M.

277 So. 2d 565, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6759

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 22, 1973

DocketNo. 72-1380

StatusPublished

This text of 277 So. 2d 565 (In the Interest of M. M.) 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 M. M., 277 So. 2d 565, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6759 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court, juvenile-family division, which adjudicated the appellant child a delinquent and committed him to the Division of Youth Services, State of Florida. The single point raised on appeal urges that the trial court erred in finding the appellant a delinquent because the evidence was circumstantial and did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See Brown v. State, 127 Fla. 225, 172 So. 921 (1937); Wilkerson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 217. We have reviewed the record in the light of the arguments presented and find that the evidence of the complaining witness completely excluded the hypothesis of innocence relied upon by the appellant. The question before the court was purely one of the credibility of the witnesses. The court recognized the issue and stated in the record that the juvenile’s explanation was incredible in view of the testimony received.

In order to obviate any doubt as to the standard of proof applied in this case by this court, we add that we have reviewed the record in the light of the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. V. D. B, Fla. 1972, 270 So.2d 6, and find the proof submitted to be sufficient under the test there applied.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court, juvenile-family division, which adjudicated the appellant child a delinquent and committed him to the Division of Youth Services, State of Florida. The single point raised on appeal urges that the trial court erred in finding the appellant a delinquent because the evidence was circumstantial and did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. See Brown v. State, 127 Fla. 225, 172 So. 921 (1937); Wilkerson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 217. We have reviewed the record in the light of the arguments presented and find that the evidence of the complaining witness completely excluded the hypothesis of innocence relied upon by the appellant. The question before the court was purely one of the credibility of the witnesses. The court recognized the issue and stated in the record that the juvenile’s explanation was incredible in view of the testimony received.

In order to obviate any doubt as to the standard of proof applied in this case by this court, we add that we have reviewed the record in the light of the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. V. D. B, Fla. 1972, 270 So.2d 6, and find the proof submitted to be sufficient under the test there applied.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 So. 2d 565, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-m-m-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack