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

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in M.B. v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2012 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 27, 1996·No. No. 96-1236·Published

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.

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

Pincite

695 So. 2d 742 (M.B. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related