S. W. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

S. W. v. State

391 So. 2d 224, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18211

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1788

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 391 So. 2d 224 (S. W. 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

S. W. v. State, 391 So. 2d 224, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18211 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

S. W., a juvenile, was found guilty of having committed first-degree arson in violation of Section 806.01, Florida Statutes (1979). The trial court withheld adjudication of delinquency and placed the juvenile in the custody of relatives to be returned to his mother in Massachusetts.¹

We reverse the finding of guilt upon a holding that (a) in order to sustain a conviction for first-degree arson, the State must prove that the fire was set wilfully and maliciously, Love v. State, 107 Fla. 376, 144 So. 843 (1932); see also K.R.M. v. State, 360 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Dodson v. State, 334 So.2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); (b) the evidence was totally consistent with the hypothesis that the fire was inadvertently caused by the juvenile throwing a cigarette, and thus insufficient to establish the required intent, McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972 (Fla.1977); Mayo v. State, 71 So.2d 899 (Fla.1954); Diaz v. State, 387 So.2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Reversed.

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

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

S. W., a juvenile, was found guilty of having committed first-degree arson in violation of Section 806.01, Florida Statutes (1979). The trial court withheld adjudication of delinquency and placed the juvenile in the custody of relatives to be returned to his mother in Massachusetts.¹

We reverse the finding of guilt upon a holding that (a) in order to sustain a conviction for first-degree arson, the State must prove that the fire was set wilfully and maliciously, Love v. State, 107 Fla. 376, 144 So. 843 (1932); see also K.R.M. v. State, 360 So.2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Dodson v. State, 334 So.2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); (b) the evidence was totally consistent with the hypothesis that the fire was inadvertently caused by the juvenile throwing a cigarette, and thus insufficient to establish the required intent, McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972 (Fla.1977); Mayo v. State, 71 So.2d 899 (Fla.1954); Diaz v. State, 387 So.2d 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 So. 2d 224, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-w-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack