M.B. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.B. v. State

695 So. 2d 742, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12635, 1996 WL 688642

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 27, 1996

DocketNo. 96-1236

StatusPublished

This text of 695 So. 2d 742 (M.B. 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

M.B. v. State, 695 So. 2d 742, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12635, 1996 WL 688642 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[743]*743CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

We accept the confession of error filed by the State of Florida in this appeal by the juvenile M.B. of his adjudication of delinquency based on a charge of grand theft. Because the evidence produced by the state to establish the corpus delicti of the charge was clearly inadmissible hearsay and, thus, improperly admitted under the “business record exception”, see, e.g., § 90.803(6), Fla. Stat. (1995); Hill v. State, 549 So.2d 179, 181-82 (Fla.1989); Harris v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm’n, 495 So.2d 806, 808-09 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the “confession” of the juvenile (which he recanted at trial) was likewise inadmissible. Ruiz v. State, 388 So.2d 610, 611-12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 392 So.2d 1380 (Fla.1981). As there is an absence of substantial, competent evidence of guilt in this record, the adjudication of delinquency is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to discharge the juvenile.

Reversed and remanded.

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

[743]*743CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

We accept the confession of error filed by the State of Florida in this appeal by the juvenile M.B. of his adjudication of delinquency based on a charge of grand theft. Because the evidence produced by the state to establish the corpus delicti of the charge was clearly inadmissible hearsay and, thus, improperly admitted under the “business record exception”, see, e.g., § 90.803(6), Fla. Stat. (1995); Hill v. State, 549 So.2d 179, 181-82 (Fla.1989); Harris v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm’n, 495 So.2d 806, 808-09 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the “confession” of the juvenile (which he recanted at trial) was likewise inadmissible. Ruiz v. State, 388 So.2d 610, 611-12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 392 So.2d 1380 (Fla.1981). As there is an absence of substantial, competent evidence of guilt in this record, the adjudication of delinquency is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to discharge the juvenile.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

695 So. 2d 742, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12635, 1996 WL 688642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mb-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack