IN THE INTEREST OF N.W., 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.
In this juvenile delinquency case, the Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a burglary conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the defendant acted as an aider and abettor to the crime. The court found that ambiguous statements by the defendant did not cure the fundamental insufficiency of evidence demonstrating his intent to participate in and assistance with the burglary.
The court held that the trial judge erred in denying the defendant's motion for discharge. The ambiguous statements made by the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence that he intended to participate in and assisted in the perpetration of the burglary. Under the law governing aider and abettor liability, it must be demonstrated that the defendant both intended to participate and actually assisted in committing the crime.
[1] A conviction for burglary cannot stand when the defendant's only connection to the crime is proximity to the scene and an ambiguous statement, without evidence of intent…
[2] An ambiguous statement, such as "I don't want to take the rap," is insufficient to establish guilt as an aider and abettor in a burglary.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“for one to be convicted as an aider and abettor it must be demonstrated not only that he intended to participate but that he assisted in the perpetration of the crime in question”
Establishes the legal standard for aider and abettor liability requiring both intent to participate and actual assistance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA security guard observed N.W. and two other black males walk past a department store, then turn around. When the two males broke the glass door to th…
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 Adjudication Of Delinquency cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The State, in its motion for rehearing, has correctly pointed out that the opinion first released on this appeal relied in part upon the decision of this court in S.L.W. v. State, 445 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). On the same date as the release of this court’s opinion in the instant case, the Supreme Court of Florida handed down its decision in State v. S.L.W., 465 So. 2d 1231 (Fla.1985), quashing the decision of this court in S.L.W. v. State, supra.
Accordingly, the opinion of this court first released is withdrawn, and this opinion is substituted therefor. This juvenile defendant was found guilty of burglary and committed to the custody of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. We reverse upon authority of Morgan v. State, 355 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and J.L.B. v. State, 396 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
The record reveals that the only evidence to connect this defendant to the burglary was the testimony of a security guard who observed N.W. and two other black males walk past the department store, which was later burglarized, and then turn around. The guard testified that appellant stood approximately six feet behind the other two males when they went to the glass door of the store and broke the door. The guard then testified that appellant walked out into the parking lot and stood there. The security guard then apprehended appellant, who at no time entered the store.
The trial judge recognized the insufficiency of the evidence at this point and so stated. However, he found that appellant had incriminated himself by two statements: first, to the security guard, that he didn’t want to take the rap; and, second, to a police officer after he had been placed in the patrol car and read his Miranda rights, that he didn’t want to take the rap himself. The police officer testified as follows: “He made the statement that he wasn’t going to take the rap by himself and identified the two other people that went into the store.”
The trial judge denied the motion for judgment of acquittal and entered the order of adjudication. The ambiguous statement to the security officer does not take this case out of the purview of the rule that for one to be convicted as an aider and abettor it must be demonstrated not only that he intended to participate but that he assisted in the perpetration of the crime in question. J.H. v. State, 370 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Accordingly, we hold that the trial judge erred in denying defendant’s motion for discharge. The order of adjudication and commitment is reversed and the case remanded with direction to discharge appellant.
The State’s petition for rehearing is directed to this opinion and, except as noted, is denied.
BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. State, 501 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…cocaine and that his statement to the officer was not an admission of his prior knowledge, but rather an expression of wonder that one could be arrested for trafficking by virtue of being in a car where others possessed cocaine. See N. W. v. State, 470 So. 2d 93, 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (juvenile’s ambiguous statement following Miranda warnings that "he didn’t want to take the rap himself’ did not serve to bolster State's case against juvenile for aiding and abetting a burglary). Since Jeffrey was indisputab…
Authorities Cited
- J. H. v. State, 370 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- J. L. B. v. State, 396 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. S.L.W., 465 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 1985)
- Morgan v. State, 355 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- S.L.W. v. State, 445 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)