A.B. v. State
| Decision Date | 18 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D13–1729.,4D13–1729. |
| Citation | 141 So.3d 647 |
| Parties | A.B., A CHILD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nan Ellen Foley, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
A juvenile appeals a finding of guilt and disposition order on two counts of petit theft. He argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of dismissal. We agree and reverse.
The theft occurred at a park where the victims were playing basketball. They placed their wallets and cell phones on the ground next to the basketball hoop. The juvenile was near the basketball court, as were other people.
When the basketball went out of bounds, one of the victims chased after it. When he turned around, he saw the juvenile and the juvenile's friend running from the area where the victims left their cell phones and wallets. The cell phones and wallets were gone.
The State filed a petition for delinquency, charging the juvenile with two counts of grand theft of property valued between $300 and $5,000. The case proceeded to a non-jury trial.
A police officer testified that she questioned the juvenile about two weeks after the theft. Prior to being formally Mirandized, he spontaneously said, “I can't believe I am going down for this alone.” After waiving his Miranda rights, he told the officer that he went to the park with a friend to play basketball. His friend said, “When I run, you run.” Moments later, he “followed [his friend] blindly, leaving his [own] shoes behind.” He did not know why they were running. They jumped a fence and got into a nearby car belonging to the juvenile's brother.
Both victims testified concerning the value of their belongings.
When the State rested, the juvenile moved for a judgment of dismissal. Counsel argued that the State failed to prove that the juvenile took the items, and that the victims' testimony concerning the value of their belongings was insufficient to prove their actual value. The trial court recognized it was a circumstantial-evidence case and that it needed to be mindful of the accelerated depreciation of electronics. The court found that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient and denied the motion.
The defense rested without putting on any evidence, and renewed its motion for judgment of dismissal. The court granted the motion in part as to count one, finding that the State failed to adequately prove the value of one of the phones. The court reduced the charge from grand theft to petit theft. The court denied the motion as to count two.
The court then found the juvenile guilty of two counts of petit theft, finding insufficient evidence to support the value of the second phone. The court adjudicated the juvenile delinquent and placed him on probation. From this disposition, the juvenile has appealed.
The juvenile continues to argue that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of dismissal because the State's circumstantial evidence failed to rebut his hypothesis of innocence. The State admits that the evidence against the juvenile was “not overwhelming,” but argues the evidence was sufficient to submit the case to the trier of fact.
“We apply a de novo standard of review for a motion for judgment of dismissal.” Q.J.L. v. State, 120 So.3d 150, 153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting J.T. v. State, 47 So.3d 934, 935–36 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). “A motion for judgment of dismissal should be granted in a circumstantial evidence case if the State fails to present evidence from which the judge can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.” D.F.J. v. State, 60 So.3d 1183, 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
No one disputes the circumstantial nature of the case. The State charged the juvenile under a principal theory, which required the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile intended that the crimes be committed and did some act to...
To continue reading
Request your trial