IN THE INTEREST OF A.R., A CHILD
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 minor was convicted of burglary and loitering/prowling after being observed with a companion who stole a tire iron from a car lot. The appellate court affirmed the loitering conviction but reversed the burglary conviction, holding that mere presence at the scene and knowledge of a companion's criminal intent, without more, are insufficient to establish aiding and abetting.
The court held that presence at the scene and knowledge of another's criminal intent, without more, are insufficient to establish aiding and abetting liability. The evidence did not preclude a reasonable inference that A.R. did not intend to participate in the criminal activity. The burglary conviction was reversed, but the loitering and prowling conviction was affirmed.
[1] To convict a defendant as an aider and abettor, the state must prove an intent to participate in the commission of the crime.
[2] Circumstantial evidence used to prove intent to aid and abet must exclude every reasonable inference that the defendant did not intend to participate in the criminal acti…
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“to be convicted as an aider and abettor, the state must show an intent to participate in the perpetration of the crime”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that aiding and abetting liability requires proof of intent to participate, not merely presence and knowledge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo police officers observed A.R. and a companion walking in a high-crime area of downtown Fort Lauderdale between 10:00 and 11:00 P.M. The officers s…
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 Intent To Participate In Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
DELL, Judge.
A.R., a child, appeals from his conviction of burglary of a structure and of loitering and prowling.
Between 10:00 and 11:00 P.M., two police officers observed appellant and another individual walking in a high crime area in downtown Fort Lauderdale. The police officers testified that appellant and his companion walked through the area in a suspicious manner. On at least two occasions the officers observed appellant standing on the sidewalk watching traffic while his companion entered a car lot, peeked into car windows and tried the car doors. Appellant’s companion testified that he needed a tire iron and that when he saw one beyond a fence which he could not reach, he jumped over the fence and took it. He testified that appellant had nothing to do with him taking the tire iron. Appellant was charged and found guilty of burglary of a structure and of loitering and prowling.
Appellant argues that, assuming he knew that his companion was looking for a tire iron, his mere presence on the sidewalk without doing any act to assist does not present sufficient evidence to convict him of aiding and abetting a burglary. In support of this argument he cites Davis v. State, 436 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) wherein this court quoted with approval from A.Y.G. v. State, 414 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982):
It is well established that to be convicted as an aider and abettor, the state must show an intent to participate in the perpetration of the crime. J.H. v. State, 370 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1980). Where there is no direct evidence of intent, the circumstantial evidence relied upon to show such an intent must be such as to preclude every reasonable inference that the defendant did not intend to participate in the criminal activity. K.W.U. v. State, 367 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1979).
Id. at 1158-59. As proof of intent, appellee relies upon the police officers’ testimony that they observed appellant and his companion going from one car lot to another and that appellant watched all pedestrian and vehicle traffic that came near while his companion checked vehicles in the car lots. Appellee also cites testimony that appellant acted as a “lookout”. Appellee has misstated the record. The trial court sustained appellant’s objection and granted his motion to strike that portion of the police officer’s testimony which described his actions as a “lookout.”
Construed in a light most favorable to the State, this evidence establishes no more than appellant’s presence at the scene and knowledge of his companion’s intent to commit a crime.
Presence at the scene, without more, is not sufficient to establish either intent to participate or act of participation. J.L.B. v. State, [396 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) supra; J.H. v. State, 370 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Mere knowledge that an offense is being committed is not equivalent to participation with criminal intent. See, e.g., United States v. Martin, 533 F. 2d 268 (5th Cir.1976). Knowledge that a crime is going to be committed and presence at the scene, without more, is generally insufficient to establish aiding and abetting. See, e.g., Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 619, 69 S.Ct. 766, 769, 93 L.Ed. 919, 925 (1949); Baker v. United States, 395 F. 2d 368 (8th Cir.1968); Ramirez v. United States, 363 F. 2d 33 (9th Cir.1966).
G.C. v. State, 407 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
We find no merit in appellant’s argument that the State presented insufficient evidence to convict him of loitering and prowling. Therefore we affirm the conviction of loitering and prowling, and reverse the conviction of burglary of a structure.
AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART.
LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
D.A. v. State, 471 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…t. denied, 423 U.S. 1019, 96 S.Ct. 455, 46 L.Ed.2d 391 (1975), the convicted defendant was found hiding in the bushes at a private dwelling at 1:20 a.m., but before he made any move to break into or attempt to break into the dwelling. In In re A.R., 460 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), the adjudicated juvenile was observed on two occasions standing on the sidewalk in a high-crime area watching traffic at 10:00-11:00 p.m. while his companion entered fenced car lots, peeked into car windows and tried car doors,…
-
J.W. v. State, 467 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…o be guilty as an aider and abettor, the state must prove that he had an intent to participate in the criminal act and rendered assistance to the actual perpetrator of the crime. N.W. v. State, 10 FLW 645 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 14, 1985); A.R. v. State, 460 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); T.J.T. v. State, 460 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); G.C. v. State, 407 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); J.L.B. v. State, 396 So. 2d at 762; Pack v. State, 381 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); J.H. v. State, 370 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d…
-
C.H.S. v. State, 795 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…t. denied, 423 U.S. 1019, 96 S.Ct. 455, 46 L.Ed.2d 391 (1975), the convicted defendant was found hiding in the bushes at a private dwelling at 1:20 a.m., but before he made any move to break into or attempt to break into the dwelling. In In re A.R., 460 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), the adjudicated juvenile was observed on two occasions standing on the sidewalk in a high-crime area watching traffic at 10:00-11:00 p.m. while his companion entered fenced car lots, peeked into‘car windows and tried car doors,…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- NYE & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613 (U.S. 1949)
- J. H. v. State, 370 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Baker v. United States, 395 F.2d 368 (8th Cir. 1968)
- G. C. v. State, 407 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- J. L. B. v. State, 396 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- A. Y. G. v. State, 414 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- K. W. U. v. State, 367 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Ramirez v. United States, 363 F.2d 33 (9th Cir. 1966)
- Francis v. State, 436 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Rook v. Allstate Ins. Co., 436 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)