Legal Opinion

R.H. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 20, 1995No. 93-02822PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FULMER, Judge.

The defendant, R.H., a child, challenges his adjudication of delinquency based on a charge of robbery. He urges that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove his specific intent to commit robbery. We agree and, accordingly, reverse.

The victim, the owner of a pharmacy, testified he approached a group of boys who were urinating in the parking area located next to his store and asked them to stop. When the victim turned to walk away, one of the juveniles stood in his path and challenged him. Another juvenile then hit him from behind. All the juveniles surrounded the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Staten v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1988
  3. Collins v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  4. Valdez v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1986
  5. S.G. v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. McLean v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2000
  2. C.B.B. v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2014
  3. Taylor v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API