JW v. State, 467 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
JW v. State, 467 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“presence at the scene of the offense and flight from the scene is legally insufficient to establish appellant's guilt as an aider and abettor.”
38 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: H.M. v. State (fladistctapp, 2002-01-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) H.M. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
presence at the scene of the offense and flight from the scene is legally insufficient to establish appellant's guilt as an aider and abettor.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James Warmington v. State of Florida (2×)
Fla. · 2014 · confidence medium
During cross-examination, Warmington admitted that he used portions of funds that the Pistols deposited into his personal bank account. - 27 - After Warmington asserted that he was actually innocent, the State was required under Florida law to refute any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence— which it did, partly by way of the testimony it elicited from Warmington.3 But see generally H.M. v. State, 802 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“[T]he trial court should have granted the respondent’s motion for judgment of acquittal with respect to the burglary count where there was no evidence ref…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A.S.F. v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Id. (citing J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ASF v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Id. (citing J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) RM v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
"Presence at the scene of the offense and flight from the scene is legally insufficient to establish appellant's guilt...." Id. (quoting J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) R.M. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
“Presence at the scene of the offense and flight from the scene is legally insufficient to establish appellant’s guilt....” Id. (quoting J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A.B.G. v. State
Fla. · 1992 · confidence medium
See, e.g., C.P.P. v. State, 479 So.2d 858, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d, 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); In re A.R., 460 So.2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); G.C. v. State, 407 So.2d 639, 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) E.B. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); T.J.T. v. State, 460 So.2d 508, 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Staten v. State, 519 So.2d 622, 624 (Fla.1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) M.F. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MF v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
"Where the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the accused's assistance and intent to participate, it is necessary for the state to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of B.W. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
“Where the State relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the accused’s assistance and intent to participate, it is necessary to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla.3d DCA 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CPP v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
"Where the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the accused's assistance and intent to participate, it is necessary to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence." J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) C.P.P. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
“Where the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the accused’s assistance and intent to participate, it is necessary to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
cited Cited "see" D.F.J. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
cited Cited "see" T.C. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); C.P.P. v. State, 479 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
cited Cited "see" T.L.F. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.W. v. State, 467 So.2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and cases cited therein; A.K. v. State, 439 So.2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); G.C. v. State, 407 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
J.W., a Juvenile, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
84-469.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Apr 23, 1985.
467 So. 2d 796
Hendry, Baskin and Daniel S. Pearson.
Published

[*797] Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Diane Leeds and Carolyn Snurkowski, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before HENDRY, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

J.W., a juvenile, appeals from an adjudication of delinquency arising from a determination that he was guilty of criminal mischief, burglary and possession of burglary tools.

The issue in this appeal is whether the state adduced sufficient evidence to establish that appellant was an aider and abettor to the offenses charged. The facts, briefly stated, were as follows. After Vivian Taylor parked her car at her sister's house and went inside, appellant and another individual were observed standing next to the driver's side of Taylor's car. Appellant and the other individual were by the car when the driver's window was smashed. One individual was observed leaning into the car while the other was seen standing with his hand on the front of the automobile, looking toward the house. When occupants of a nearby house came out, the appellant and the other person ran away. No one at the adjudicatory hearing could identify which individual had broken the window, or who had leaned into the window. After the state offered this evidence, it rested its case. The appellant then moved for a judgment of acquittal, which motion was denied. He was thereafter adjudicated delinquent.

Since no one at the hearing could identify who broke the window or leaned into the window, it must be assumed it was not the appellant. J.L.B. v. State, 396 So.2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); K.W.U. v. State, 367 So.2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1979). Appellant could then only be found guilty of the offenses charged if he acted as an aider and abettor. For appellant to be guilty as an aider and abettor, the state must prove that he had an intent to participate in the criminal act and rendered assistance to the actual perpetrator of the crime. N.W. v. State, 10 FLW 645 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 14, 1985); A.R. v. State, 460 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); T.J.T. v. State, 460 So.2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); G.C. v. State, 407 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); J.L.B. v. State, 396 So.2d at 762; Pack v. State, 381 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); J.H. v. State, 370 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So.2d 209 (Fla. 1980).

Appellant contends that the state's only evidence against him is that he was present at the scene of the commission of a crime and that he fled therefrom. He contends the state offers no evidence that he assisted in the perpetration of a crime or that he had the intent to join in the crime. We agree with appellant's assertions.

Where the state relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the accused's assistance and intent to participate, it is necessary for the state to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Jaramillo v. State, 417 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1982); McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972 (Fla. 1977); Davis v. State, 90 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1956); Pack v. State, 381 So.2d at 1200; Lockett v. State, 262 So.2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). This the state has not done.

The state has not excluded the reasonable hypothesis that the appellant was merely a witness to the crime. Presence at the scene of the offense and flight from the scene is legally insufficient to establish appellant's guilt as an aider and abettor. J.L.B. v. State, 396 So.2d at 762; D.M. v. State, 394 So.2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); J.O. v. State, 384 So.2d 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Pack v. State, 381 So.2d at 1200; J.H. v. State, 370 So.2d at 1220. Therefore the order of adjudication and commitment is reversed and the case remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.

Reversed and remanded.