IN THE INTEREST OF T.T., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A juvenile appealed his adjudication of delinquency for robbery, challenging the sufficiency of evidence that he committed the robbery and that he used a firearm. The court affirmed, holding that voice identification by the victims and circumstantial evidence of the appellant's threats and actions during the robbery were sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and to establish that a firearm was used.
The court held that voice identification by the victims and circumstantial evidence of the appellant's threats and actions during the robbery were sufficient to establish guilt. The court also held that the circumstantial evidence of the appellant stopping and threatening the victim during his flight proved more than mere subjective belief that a firearm was used.
[1] Voice identification by victims is direct and positive proof of a perpetrator's identity.
[2] Circumstantial evidence may be used to prove guilt.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Voice identification is direct and positive proof the probative value of which is determined by the finder of fact.”
Establishes that voice identification is a reliable form of evidence and that weight is given to the finder of fact.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was identified as the perpetrator of a robbery through voice identification by two victims, one of whom had known him for ten years. The…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Voice Identification cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence adduced at trial to support a finding of guilt and insufficient evidence to establish that a firearm was used in the robbery for which he was adjudicated delinquent. We do not agree and affirm.
Appellant was identified as the perpetrator of the robbery through voice identification by the two victims, one of whom had known appellant for ten years. Voice identification is direct and positive proof the probative value of which is determined by the finder of fact. Mack v. State, 54 Fla. 55, 44 So. 706 (1907).
Both victims testified that appellant held an object which appeared to be a gun. When appellant accosted the first victim, he threatened, “Give me the money or I’ll blow your brains out.” While being pursued by the second victim, appellant stopped, turned, pointed the object toward the victim and shouted, “Stop or I’ll shoot.” Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously used a subjective test to determine that a firearm was used, citing I.O. v. State, 412 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982) [Reasonable belief of victim that weapon was a real gun erroneously used to find aggravated assault] and McCray v. State, 358 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) [Cigarette lighter shaped like a gun, with no evidence that death or great bodily harm would result from its use, did not constitute a weapon for the purposes of imposing an aggravated penalty],
We distinguish both cases in that here there was additional evidence of appellant’s stop and threat during his flight. This additional evidence proves more than a subjective belief by the victims that the object was a firearm. Circumstantial evidence is properly used to prove the guilt of an accused. See Toler v. State, 457 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The standard of proof to adjudge a minor delinquent is the same as that required to convict an adult. J.L.J. v. State, 367 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979).
We find that the circumstantial evidence was such that the trial judge, sitting as the trier of fact in this juvenile proceeding, could properly conclude that appellant used a firearm in the robbery.
Accordingly, appellant’s adjudication of delinquency and disposition is AFFIRMED.
WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Dorian Fletcher v. State, 472 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…s the police never found one. See, e.g., G.E.G. v. State, 417 So. 2d 975, 977 (Fla.1982) (where a defendant is charged with possession of a controlled substance, that substance, if available must be introduced into evidence). See also T.T. v. State, 459 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (Evidence sufficient to support finding of use of a firearm in robbery where victims testified defendant had an object which appeared to be a gun and defendant stated to victims, “Give me the money or I’ll blow your brains out,”…
-
Mitchell v. State, 698 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…rearm during a crime can be established even if the gun is not recovered and introduced into evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish the use of a firearm. Bradley v. State, 413 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); T.T. v. State, 459 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Meyer v. State, 498 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Council v. State, 691 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). [*559] In this case, numerous witnesses testified that Mr. Mitchell committed crimes while carrying what they thought was…
-
Butler v. State, 602 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…985) (testimony of victim that defendant placed a “cold and hard” object against his throat, which defendant said was a razor blade with which he intended to cut victim if victim did not give him money, sufficient); In the Interest of T.T. v. State, 459 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (testimony of two victims that defendant held what appeared to be a gun, together with testimony that defendant said “[g]ive me the money or I’ll blow your brains out” and “[s]top or I’ll shoot,” sufficient). In this case, the s…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eldridge A. McCRAY v. State, 358 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Dock Mack v. State, 54 Fla. 55 (Fla. 1907)
- I.O. v. State, 412 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- J. L. J. v. State, 367 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Toler v. State, 457 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)