A.B. v. State, 141 So. 3d 647

Juvenile appeals a finding of guilt and disposition on two counts of petit theft.
The State charged two counts of grand theft valued between $300 and $5,000; case proceeded to a non-jury trial.
State presented circumstantial evidence: juvenile in area, seen running near the crime scene, and a qualifying comment.
Court treated as circumstantial evidence; reduced one count due to insufficient value proof and ultimately convicted on two petit theft counts.
Appellant argues the circumstantial evidence cannot exclude innocence and the trial court erred in denying judgment of dismissal; the court reverses and remands for dismissal and vacatur of guilt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction on two counts of petit theft on a circumstantial theory?	Juvenile’s presence, running, and comment fail to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.	State’s circumstantial evidence should have allowed a reasonable jury to conclude guilt.	No; evidence failed to exclude reasonable hypothesis of innocence; judgment of dismissal required.

Q.J.L. v. State, 120 So.3d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (standard for judgment of dismissal in circumstantial cases)
D.F.J. v. State, 60 So.3d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (circumstantial evidence must exclude all reasonable hypotheses other than guilt)
A.S.F. v. State, 70 So.3d 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (principal theory requires proven intent and act of assistance)
T.W. v. State, 98 So.3d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (mere presence or ambiguous conduct not enough for participation)
Theophile v. State, 78 So.3d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (ambiguous statements resolved in favor of the accused)
Fiske v. State, 366 So.2d 423 (Fla. 1978) (ambiguous admissions must be resolved in accused’s favor)
Hill v. State, 958 So.2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (distinguishable: no evidence of participation)
J.T. v. State, 47 So.3d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (circumstantial-case standards applied)