J. M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

J. M. v. State

884 So. 2d 481, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14657, 2004 WL 2251871

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 6, 2004

DocketNo. 4D03-3884

StatusPublished

This text of 884 So. 2d 481 (J. 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

J. M. v. State, 884 So. 2d 481, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14657, 2004 WL 2251871 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm J.M.’s conviction for burglary. While J.M. claimed that she entered the dwelling to retrieve her own property, she admitted to her stealthy entry in the middle of the night. Section 810.07, Florida Statutes (2002), establishes that proof of stealthy entry is prima facie evidence of entering with intent to commit an offense. The statutory presumption is sufficient to create a prima facie case and avoid a judgment of acquittal. See Thomas v. State, 655 So.2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (finding defendant’s self-serving statements for reason for breaking into home in early hours of morning did not negate statutory presumption so as to preclude submission of case to jury to evaluate defendant’s explanation along with presumption).

Although appellant also challenges the admission of hearsay evidence, we conclude that the admission of the evidence, even if improper, was harmless.

Affirmed.

WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm J.M.’s conviction for burglary. While J.M. claimed that she entered the dwelling to retrieve her own property, she admitted to her stealthy entry in the middle of the night. Section 810.07, Florida Statutes (2002), establishes that proof of stealthy entry is prima facie evidence of entering with intent to commit an offense. The statutory presumption is sufficient to create a prima facie case and avoid a judgment of acquittal. See Thomas v. State, 655 So.2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (finding defendant’s self-serving statements for reason for breaking into home in early hours of morning did not negate statutory presumption so as to preclude submission of case to jury to evaluate defendant’s explanation along with presumption).

Although appellant also challenges the admission of hearsay evidence, we conclude that the admission of the evidence, even if improper, was harmless.

Affirmed.

WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

884 So. 2d 481, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 14657, 2004 WL 2251871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-m-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack