Young v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Young v. State

424 So. 2d 960, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18461

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 11, 1983

DocketNo. 81-1219

StatusPublished

This text of 424 So. 2d 960 (Young 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

Young v. State, 424 So. 2d 960, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18461 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the only evidence at the trial which was admissible against the defendant-appellant, his own statement, was insufficient as a matter of law to justify the jury finding that he was guilty of the crime of false imprisonment. Sec. 787.02, Fla.Stat. (1979); see A.Y.G. v. State, 414 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Perez v. State, 390 So.2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Pack v. State, 381 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Lockett v. State, 262 So.2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Douglas v. State, 214 So.2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). As in the cases cited, Young could, at most, properly have been convicted only of being an accessory after the fact of his co-defendant’s commission of the offense, a crime with which the appellant was not charged. See A.Y.G. v. State, supra, 414 So.2d at 1159. For this reason, the judgment under review is reversed with directions to discharge the defendant.

KAPNER, LEWIS, Associate Judge, dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

We conclude that the only evidence at the trial which was admissible against the defendant-appellant, his own statement, was insufficient as a matter of law to justify the jury finding that he was guilty of the crime of false imprisonment. Sec. 787.02, Fla.Stat. (1979); see A.Y.G. v. State, 414 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Perez v. State, 390 So.2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Pack v. State, 381 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Lockett v. State, 262 So.2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Douglas v. State, 214 So.2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). As in the cases cited, Young could, at most, properly have been convicted only of being an accessory after the fact of his co-defendant’s commission of the offense, a crime with which the appellant was not charged. See A.Y.G. v. State, supra, 414 So.2d at 1159. For this reason, the judgment under review is reversed with directions to discharge the defendant.

KAPNER, LEWIS, Associate Judge, dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

424 So. 2d 960, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack