R.J.K. v. State, 2D04-4216.
| Decision Date | 10 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D04-4216.,2D04-4216. |
| Citation | 928 So.2d 499 |
| Parties | R.J.K., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and A. Anne Owens, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Danilo Cruz-Carino, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
R.J.K. appeals a disposition order adjudicating him delinquent based on a finding that he committed burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. Because the evidence was insufficient to prove that R.J.K. committed either offense, we reverse the disposition order.
The State filed a petition for delinquency alleging that R.J.K. committed second-degree felony burglary of a dwelling and third-degree felony grand theft. The matter proceeded to an adjudicatory hearing at which only one witness testified — the victim of the burglary and theft.
The victim, Marlon Hodge, is R.J.K.'s uncle. He testified that he was at his home during the morning of March 5, 2004, when "some guys" he did not know knocked on the door and asked for someone named "Kiki." Mr. Hodge told them that no one by that name lived there. Afterward, Mr. Hodge watched as "this gentleman" got in a green and black Jeep Cherokee.
Mr. Hodge then left his home for forty-five minutes to have lunch. When he returned, his front door was knocked in and the lock was removed. He walked into his bedroom and noticed that things were in disarray. He then walked to a second bedroom, where he kept money hidden under a pile of clothes, and discovered that his money was gone. He testified that he had $8000 in cash and $700 in change. He also testified that the burglar took a PlayStation 2, several games, and a hat. He testified that he had paid $150 for the PlayStation 2 a year earlier, and it was in good condition. Mr. Hodge did not see the burglar or burglars who entered his home.
Mr. Hodge testified that he reported the burglary and the "police" responded. However, no law enforcement officer testified at the adjudicatory hearing, and no evidence was introduced concerning the content of the incident report or the details of any investigation conducted by law enforcement.
Mr. Hodge testified that he was suspicious of his nephew, R.J.K., so he located R.J.K. later that evening and confronted him. At that time, R.J.K. was sitting on a porch with a girl. Mr. Hodge "snatched him up," put him in his car, and took him to another location — R.J.K.'s aunt's house. Mr. Hodge testified that he was upset during this confrontation and asked R.J.K., "how could he come to my house with these guys and break in." In response, R.J.K. said that he told "these guys," "oh, I'm going to go to my uncle's house and get some money that he keeps in a jar."
Mr. Hodge testified that R.J.K. then telephoned someone named "Bird." According to Mr. Hodge, R.J.K. instructed Bird to "bring my uncle his money." Rather than waiting, Mr. Hodge told R.J.K. to take him directly to Bird, and R.J.K. proceeded to do so.
When they arrived at their destination, R.J.K. got out of Mr. Hodge's car and walked to a vehicle parked nearby — an Altima. R.J.K. jumped in the Altima, in which there were other boys, and the vehicle drove away. Mr. Hodge was unable to catch up to the Altima, but the Altima "double-backed" on him and went to R.J.K.'s aunt's house. Mr. Hodge also went to R.J.K.'s aunt's house. When Mr Hodge arrived, R.J.K.'s aunt handed him $500.
Mr. Hodge testified that he did not give R.J.K. permission to enter his home at any time or to take any of his property or money. However, no testimony was elicited from Mr. Hodge to establish whether R.J.K. had ever entered Mr. Hodge's home.
No other witnesses testified, and no physical evidence was introduced. Defense counsel moved for a judgment of dismissal in regard to both counts at the end of the State's case and renewed the motion at the close of all the evidence. The defense argued with specificity a number of grounds in support of the motion explaining how the State had failed to sufficiently establish each element of each offense. The State responded that R.J.K. admitted that he "went" to Mr. Hodge's home to get some money. R.J.K.'s motion was denied.
The purpose of a motion for judgment of dismissal in a juvenile case is to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented by the state. A.P.R. v. State, 894 So.2d 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). In considering such a motion, all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the state; when viewed in that light, if a rational trier of fact could find that the elements of the offense have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction and the motion should be denied. Id. at 285. The denial of a motion for judgment of dismissal is reviewed by this court de novo. Id. (citing Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla.2002)).
Application of the foregoing standard leads u...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cannon v. State
...to and d[id] incite, cause, encourage, assist, or advise another person to actually commit the crime.'" (quoting R.J.K. v. State, 928 So.2d 499, 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006))). Ms. Cannon was, to be sure, thoroughly implicated (albeit by the testimony of a single witness, the admitted perpetrator......
-
P.B.P. v. State
...for judgment of dismissal in a juvenile case tests the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented by the State. R.J.K. v. State, 928 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). In considering such a motion, the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence must be viewe......
-
McFadden v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corrs.
...another person to actually commit the crime.” Charles v. State, 945 So.2d 579, 581-82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting R.J.K. v. State, 928 So.2d 499, 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 9 Here, the evidence supported the jury instruction. Mr. McDonald testified that he saw both women stealing items from the stor......
-
Matter of Louissaint
...within the dwelling.'" M.E.R. v. State, 993 So.2d 1145, 1146 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (emphasis added) (quoting R.J.K. v. State, 928 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)); see also D.R. v. State, 734 So.2d 455, 457 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999); T.S.J. v. State, 439 So.2d 966, 967 (Fla.......