A.H. v. State

RYDER, Judge.

The state’s case presented below portrays a complete absence of evidence demonstrating that A.H. was the perpetrator of the offense of grand theft. Therefore, the trial court should have granted A.H.’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state’s case, and certainly should have granted such at the close of all the evidence. Failure to do so was error. R.D. v. State, 426 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); T.M. v. State, 415 So.2d 904 (Fla.3d DCA 1982) and D.M. v. State, 394 So.2d 520 (Fla.3d DCA 1981).

Furthermore, the evidence was insufficient to justify an…