RM v. State, 2D99-2549.
| Decision Date | 07 April 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D99-2549.,2D99-2549. |
| Citation | 754 So.2d 849 |
| Parties | R.M., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
R.M. appeals his conviction for loitering and prowling in violation of section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1997), and contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal. Because the evidence presented by the State was legally insufficient for a conviction, we reverse.
On the night of February 6, 1999, a gas station manager in Sarasota saw a young man and woman in the parking lot of the Cadillac dealership across the street. For approximately ten minutes, the manager observed the two pulling on the door handles of one car after another. Because of their conduct and the late hour—it was almost 11:00 p.m.—the manager called the police. While she was on the phone the manager told the dispatcher that the two had begun walking down an adjacent street, but she never saw them again after they were arrested, and at trial the manager was unable to identify R.M. as the young man she saw pulling on the door handles.
Having presented this background information at the outset of the trial, the State turned its attention to the circumstances surrounding R.M.'s apprehension. An officer stopped R.M. and a companion as they walked in a public street approximately 50 feet away from the Cadillac dealership. When asked what he was doing there, R.M. gave somewhat inconsistent and improbable answers. A second officer testified that he inspected the lot and found what appeared to be fingerprints and pry marks on the windows or doorjambs of several cars, but because the vehicles were covered with dew and precipitation he could not obtain any more evidence. The police investigation uncovered no tools, either in the lot or on R.M.'s person. This second officer speculated that R.M. was conducting a "probe"-surveying the premises in anticipation of possible future criminal conduct.
In J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), this court held that to obtain a conviction for loitering and prowling the State must prove the following two elements: first, the accused must be loitering and prowling in a manner not usual for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rinehart v. State, 2D99-4642.
...DCA 1999). Where there is no evidence of an imminent threat to either persons or property no crime is committed. See R.M. v. State, 754 So.2d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Here, the deputy admitted that when he first observed Mr. Rinehart, he did not suspect that his behavior constituted an ......
-
S.K.W. v. State
...1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). “[T]he mere suspicion of future conduct is insufficient.” Rucker, 921 So.2d at 859 (citing R.M. v. State, 754 So.2d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)). The State relies on C.H.S. v. State, 795 So.2d 1087, 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), for the proposition that alarm is presumed......
-
J.D.H. v. State, 2D06-3974.
...circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable concern for the safety of persons or property in the area. R.M. v. State, 754 So.2d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); J.S.B. v. State, 729 So.2d 456, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Further, the defendant's actions must be so alarming as to create ......
-
Grant v. State, 4D02-839.
...is irrelevant because the men's actions were not alarming, thus there was no need for the men to dispel alarm. See R.M. v. State, 754 So.2d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (finding defendant's inconsistent and puzzling answers to officer's questions were irrelevant because there was no need for......