LOG IN
    SELECT A PUBLICATION:
Florida Law Weekly
FLW Supplement
FLW Federal
User Name:
Password:
 

CONTACT
    Toll-free: 800-351-0917
    E-mail us
    Submit Opinions
PLACE AN ORDER
    Print Editions
    Online Editions
    Bound Volumes
    2/24-Hour Online Access
OUR PUBLICATIONS
    Florida Law Weekly
    FLW Supplement
    FLW Federal
    Collected Cases
    Sample FLW Online
RESEARCH
    Cross Citations
    Week In Review
    Rule Revisions
    Review Granted
    Current Issue Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    2023 Cumulative Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    Public Reprimands
    Florida Statutes
    Helpful Links


   
22 Fla. L. Weekly D2192a

D.D., a juvenile, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. 3rd District. Criminal law -- Juveniles -- Burglary -- Record devoid of evidence sufficient to support finding of guilt on charge of accessory after fact -- Fact that one of men involved in burglary was an acquaintance of juvenile and that he and another man accompanied juvenile to victim's home not sufficient to prove that juvenile knew more about the men than the information she provided to police detective

D.D., a juvenile, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 97-560. L.T. Case No. 96-19286. Opinion filed September 17, 1997. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, James C. Henderson, Judge. Counsel: Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Maria E. Lauredo, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Paulette R. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

(Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., GODERICH and SORONDO, JJ.)

(PER CURIAM.) D.D., a juvenile, was charged by an amended petition of delinquency with the burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery and as an accessory after the fact. The trial court acquitted her of the former and found her guilty of the latter. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and D.D. was placed on non-reporting community control.

The state alleged that the burglary was committed by D.D. and two men. Subsequent to the burglary a police detective questioned D.D. and asked her to identify the men who had entered the victim's home and beaten him. D.D. gave the officer the first name and nickname of one of the men and told the police that although she knew the other man from the neighborhood she did not know his name. The victim testified that the man D.D. told police she could not identify was in D.D.'s car earlier in the same day the burglary was committed.

The record in this case is devoid of any evidence sufficient to support a finding of guilt on the charge of accessory after the fact. As argued by D.D.'s counsel, ``The fact that one of the boys was an acquaintance to D.D., and that the boys accompanied her to [the victim's] home, does not prove that D.D. knew more about the boys than the information she provided.'' We agree and reverse for discharge of the respondent.

Reversed and remanded.

* * *