CPP v. State, 479 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
CPP v. State, 479 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: A.D. v. State (fladistctapp, 2013-02-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A.D. v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
See e.g., G.C., 407 So.2d at 640 (reversing an adjudication of delinquency of aiding and abetting in an attempted burglary when the defendant knew of the burglary plan, went to the scene with his codefendant, and stood fifteen feet back from the building as he watched his code-fendant remove a pane of the apartment’s glass window); C.P.P. v. State, 479 So.2d 858, 858-59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (reversing an adjudication of delinquency for burglary and grand theft when the defendant, who knew of his codefendants’ plan to steal from a store, waited outside the store in a car with a lookout while…
cited Cited as authority (rule) A.S.F. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
C.P.P. v. State, 479 So.2d 858, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) ASF v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
C.P.P. v. State, 479 So.2d 858, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) TB v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Such assistance can consist of "doing or saying something that caused, encouraged, assisted or incited the perpetrators to actually commit the crime." C.P.P. v. State, 479 So.2d 858, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); B.W. v. State, 546 So.2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) T.B. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Such assistance can consist of “doing or saying something that caused, encouraged, assisted or incited the perpetrators to actually commit the crime.” C.P.P. v. State, 479 So.2d 858, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); B.W. v. State, 546 So.2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Everly v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
In C.C.P. v. State, 479 So.2d 858, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the court reversed an adjudication of delinquency for burglary and grand theft charges based on an aider and abettor theory, where the evidence consisted essentially of the testimony of a store manager stating that his store was burglarized, ... and appellant's confession, admitting his presence in an automobile at the store premises while two other persons left the car, and returned two and one-half hours later, placing four or five bags in the trunk.
cited Cited as authority (rule) ABG v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
C.P.P. v. State, 479 So.2d 858, 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); B.W. v. State, supra .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A.B.G. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
C.P.P. v. State, 479 So.2d 858, 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); B.W. v. State, supra. The elements of assistance of the perpetrator and intent may be proven by a combination of surrounding circumstances from which a jury can reasonably infer defendant’s guilt.
cited Cited "see" Sanders v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See C.P.P. v. State, 479 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA1985).
cited Cited "see" A.W. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See C.P.P. v. State, 479 So.2d 858, 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); T.J.T v. State, 460 So.2d 508, 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." A.B.G. v. State
Fla. · 1992 · signal: see, e.g. · 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).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
C.P.P., a Child, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
BF-249.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec 18, 1985.
479 So. 2d 858
Ervin.
Published

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, Thomas E. Duffy, Asst. Public Defender, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Henri C. Cawthon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

ERVIN, Judge.

C.P.P. appeals from an order of adjudication of delinquency, for the offenses of burglary and grand theft. He argues that the lower court erred in adjudicating him a delinquent child on the theory that he acted as an aider and abettor, because the evidence was insufficient to establish appellant's[*859] commission of such offenses in such capacity. We agree and reverse.

The evidence against appellant consists essentially of the testimony of a store manager stating that his store was burglarized, and that entry was accomplished through a roof hatch, resulting in the theft of approximately $2,000 worth of merchandise; and appellant's confession, admitting his presence in an automobile at the store premises while two other persons left the car, and returned two and one-half hours later, placing four or five bags in the trunk. Appellant also admitted having prior knowledge that the two others intended to burglarize the store and take goods therefrom. Finally, he admitted that another person remained in the car for the purpose of serving as a lookout. We agree that appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted on the ground that the circumstantial evidence presented did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

To convict appellant as an aider and abettor, the state had to show that he (1) assisted the actual perpetrators by doing or saying something that caused, encouraged, assisted or incited the perpetrators to actually commit the crime; and (2) intended to participate in the crime. Howard v. State, 473 So.2d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Horton v. State, 442 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). "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).

In the case at bar, the state proved: (1) the burglary of the store; (2) appellant's knowledge that the burglary was being committed; and (3) appellant's presence at or near the store shortly before and after the burglary. As to the circumstance of appellant's knowledge, the rule is clear that "mere knowledge that an offense is being committed is not the same as participation with the requisite criminal intent." Horton, 442 So.2d at 1066; Collins v. State, 438 So.2d 1036, 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Also, presence at the scene of the offense and flight from the scene are insufficient to establish participation. J.W., 467 So.2d at 797; Horton, 442 So.2d at 1066. The state's evidence before us did not eliminate the hypothesis that appellant "stopped and refused to act or participate in the commission of the crime[s], and thus, did not assist". T.J.T. v. State, 460 So.2d 508, 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

REVERSED.

JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.