R.B. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

R.B. v. State

566 So. 2d 931, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7118, 1990 WL 133833

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 18, 1990

DocketNo. 90-62

StatusPublished

This text of 566 So. 2d 931 (R.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

R.B. v. State, 566 So. 2d 931, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7118, 1990 WL 133833 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

R.B. was adjudicated delinquent for possession of cocaine and for obstruction of a police officer in the performance of his duty. He does not contest the adjudication with respect to the cocaine charge, but contends that the State failed to exclude his reasonable hypothesis of innocence, see D.M. v. State, 394 So.2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), as to the obstruction charge. R.B. contends, in essence, that his failure to comply with the order to stop was not wrongful because he did not know that the person (dressed in plain clothes) who ordered him to stop was a policeman. Taking the record in the light most favorable to the State, R.B.’s hypothesis of innocence was negated by the fact that while running away, R.B. threw down a change purse containing cocaine. That action was consistent with knowledge that the pursuing person was a policeman, and inconsistent with R.B.’s claimed lack of knowledge. As R.B.’s hypothesis of innocence was, in the circumstances, an unreasonable one, the adjudication of delinquency was entirely proper.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

R.B. was adjudicated delinquent for possession of cocaine and for obstruction of a police officer in the performance of his duty. He does not contest the adjudication with respect to the cocaine charge, but contends that the State failed to exclude his reasonable hypothesis of innocence, see D.M. v. State, 394 So.2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), as to the obstruction charge. R.B. contends, in essence, that his failure to comply with the order to stop was not wrongful because he did not know that the person (dressed in plain clothes) who ordered him to stop was a policeman. Taking the record in the light most favorable to the State, R.B.’s hypothesis of innocence was negated by the fact that while running away, R.B. threw down a change purse containing cocaine. That action was consistent with knowledge that the pursuing person was a policeman, and inconsistent with R.B.’s claimed lack of knowledge. As R.B.’s hypothesis of innocence was, in the circumstances, an unreasonable one, the adjudication of delinquency was entirely proper.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 So. 2d 931, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7118, 1990 WL 133833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rb-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack