A.D. v. State
106 So. 3d 67
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- A.D., a juvenile, appeals adjudication and disposition for burglary of a conveyance, grand theft of a motor vehicle, petit theft, criminal mischief, and trespass (2010 Florida statutes).
- Delara property minivan was stolen, with private property and no trespassing signs visible; witnesses found the van crashed through a gate and a damaged ATV nearby.
- Deputy observed the van speeding with three youths, including A.D., inside; later scenes showed the youths on Delara property and entering the van after an ATV crash.
- M.P., A.D., and K.B. trespassed onto the property; M.P. drove the ATV into the fence, fell, and A.D. helped extricate him; K.B. drove the van off the property.
- The State charged multiple offenses and the appellate court reviews the denial of judgments of acquittal de novo, addressing adequacy of evidence and reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for burglary and grand theft | State contends A.D. aided and abetted K.B. or knowingly participated in theft of the van. | A.D. lacked knowledge or encouragement of the theft; he entered after the theft began and did not exercise dominion over the vehicle. | Burglary and grand theft reversed; State failed to rebut A.D.'s hypothesis of innocence. |
| Trespass vs. burglary and theft intent | A.D. entered property and later the van with possible intent to facilitate crime. | Evidence shows only trespass and lack of specific intent to steal the van by A.D.; no aider-and-abettor contact proven. | Court reduces burglary to trespass in a conveyance and affirms lack of theft intent. |
| Aiding and abetting in ATV theft | A.D. participated in a common scheme to steal the ATV and aided M.P. post-crash. | There is no direct encouragement or words by A.D. to facilitate the ATV theft; only after-the-fact behavior. | The State's evidence supports theft of the ATV; adjudication sustained. |
| Criminal mischief element requiring intent | A.D. willfully damaged property (gate, ATV) during trespass; statements show intent. | A.D. lacked control of the van and caused limited damage; no proof of damage to mailbox or van. | Adjudication for criminal mischief affirmed; only gate and ATV damage considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- G.C. v. State, 560 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (passenger in stolen vehicle insufficient for theft; requires dominion or intent)
- G.C. v. State, 407 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (when multiple inferences exist, failure to conclusively prove offense)
- Law, 559 So.2d 187 (Fla. 1989) (state must present evidence inconsistent with defendant's hypothesis of innocence)
- Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1974) (state must present sufficient evidence to sustain verdict under the law)
- D.L. v. State, 567 So.2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (lesser-included offenses when lack of proof of specific intent)
- T.S. v. State, 675 So.2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (deliberate pattern of conduct can establish burglary evidence)
- Valdez v. State, 504 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (after-the-fact behavior insufficient to prove participation)
- C.P.P. v. State, 479 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (presence and lookout without further acts may not prove burglary/theft)
- DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1957) (competent evidence may derive from surrounding circumstances)