Boyce v. State, 92-3166
| Citation | 638 So.2d 98 |
| Decision Date | 18 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-3166,92-3166 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D1113 Kay L. BOYCE and Norman Robert Boyce, Jr., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Joseph R. Chloupek, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Georgina Jimenez-Orosa, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Kay L. Boyce and Norman Robert Boyce appeal their convictions for child abuse and contributing to the dependency of a minor. We affirm their convictions for contributing to the dependency of a minor and one count of child abuse, but we reverse their convictions for four counts of child abuse because the State failed to prove that any act or omission by either parent caused the child's problem or caused permanent psychological damage.
Appellants were charged by a seven-count information with child abuse and contributing to the dependency of a minor. Their daughter, R.B., was the alleged victim. Counts I and II alleged that Appellants' physical and/or verbal abuse caused R.B. to develop encopresis, a disease where a person involuntarily or deliberately soils his or her pants. Counts VI and VII alleged that Appellants' failure to have R.B. evaluated by a physician or psychologist in order to ascertain the cause of the continuing encopresis caused R.B. to suffer permanent psychological damage.
During the trial a psychologist, who did not examine R.B., testified about the physical and psychological causes of encopresis, including stress and parent-child conflicts. He testified that untreated encopresis could cause permanent psychological damage to a child.
A pediatrician who examined R.B. testified that he did not find an organic cause for R.B.'s encopresis and admitted he could not find the actual cause of the disease.
After the State rested and at the close of all the evidence, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts except one child abuse count not at issue here. The trial court denied the motions and Appellants were convicted on all counts.
A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence. Where the state has presented competent evidence to support every element of a crime, a judgment of acquittal is properly denied. Peacock v. State, 498 So.2d 545, 546 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In moving for a judgment of acquittal, a defendant admits all the facts and evidence adduced at trial, as well as every conclusion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sapp v. State
...by culpable negligence. A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence. See Boyce v. State, 638 So.2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed by the de novo standard. Jones v. State, 790 So.2d 1194, 1196 (Fla. 1st......
-
Dupree v. State
...at trial, as well as every conclusion favorable to the State that a jury might fairly and reasonably infer therefrom." Boyce v. State, 638 So.2d 98, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see also Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974). "The state is not required to 'rebut conclusively every possible......
-
State v. Williams, 98-2055.
...party that a jury might fairly and reasonably infer from the evidence. Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974); Boyce v. State, 638 So.2d 98 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The Supreme Court of Florida has set out the trial court's duty as follows: It is the trial judge's proper task to review the......
-
Daniels v. State, 4D00-1421.
...at trial, as well as every conclusion favorable to the state that a jury might fairly and reasonably infer therefrom." Boyce v. State, 638 So.2d 98, 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see also Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974). "The state is not required to `rebut conclusively every possible......