K.O. v. StateK.O. v. State
K.O., а child, appeals from an order adjudicating him delinquent for the offense of burglary of a conveyance in violation of section 810.02, Florida Statutes. We affirm the lower court’s denial of appellant’s motiоn for judgment of acquittal finding that there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction on the charge of burglary of a conveyance.
The incident in this ease took place at a business known as the Autо Toy Store, an exotic car dealership, at about 1:30 p.m. The state’s witness was an auto detailer еmployed by the dealership who testified that he observed three young men walking across the street looking at the cars on the lot. He also testified that he saw one of the young men, later identified as K.O., throw a rоck and break a window of one of the ears. The witness stated that he did not actually see the rock that was thrown break the window, but he heard glass breaking. The witness pursued the young man and his two associates and stopped them, at which time K.O. was very cooperative and did in fact return with the witness to the auto dealershiр. Upon his return to the dealership, K.O. denied breaking the car window and taking a telephone from the car, but rather, told the witness that one of the other boys had taken the telephone and hid it in the bushes as they exitеd the premises. The witness expressed surprise as he was not aware that a telephone had been taken.
At the close of the state’s case, the appellant moved for judgment of acquittal of burglаry of a conveyance. The state informed the court that it was proceeding under an aiding and abetting theory. The court denied appellant’s motion and ultimately found him guilty as charged.
A review of the recоrd demonstrates that there was evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction for burglary under an aiding and abеtting theory. Under this theory, appellant could be convicted of burglary if the evidence presented by thе state at trial was sufficient 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. A.B.G. v. State,
The guilt of an aider or abettor can be established by circumstantial еvidence, but such evidence must be both consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence; evidence which establishes nothing more than a suspicion, or even probability, of guilt is not sufficiеnt. Davis v. State,
[i]t is the trial judge’s proper task to review the evidence to determine the presence or absence of competent evidence from which the jury could infer guilt to the exclusion of all other infеrences. That view of the evidence must be taken in the light most favorable to the state. Spinkellink v. State,313 So.2d 666 , 670 (Fla.1975), cert. denied,428 U.S. 911 ,96 S.Ct. 3227 ,49 L.Ed.2d 1221 (1976). The state is not rеquired to “rebut conclusively every possible variation” of events which could be inferred from the evidence, but only to introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant’s theory of events. See Toole v. State,472 So.2d 1174 , 1176 (Flа.1985). Once that threshold burden is met, it becomes the [factfinder’s] duty to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
In thе instant ease, there was sufficient evidence presented by the state to meet
While mere presence at the scene, knowledge of thе crime, and flight are insufficient to justify a conviction, where the state presents additional evidence whiсh contradicts the defendant’s theory of innocence, the trial court’s decision to deny a motion of acquittal must be affirmed. A.B.G.,
AFFIRMED.