Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1981

R. A. L. v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided September 1, 1981 · Barkdull, Ferguson, Schwartz

402 So. 2d 1337; 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 21021 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

33 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

C.T. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)
C.T. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)
RDS v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
R.D.S. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
J.H. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
Jackson v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
JJ v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
J.J. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Quinones v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)
Kerr v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
FD v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
F.D. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
Bertone v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
Youngs v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
ELS v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
Interest of M.M. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
E.L.S. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)
D.I. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
BP v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
B.P. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
Valdez v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)
Coleman v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Adderly v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
RM v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
R.M. v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The adjudication of delinquency under review is reversed with directions to discharge the appellant. Just as in A. R. v. State, 393 So.2d 1174 (Fla.3d DCA 1981), the respondent’s unrefuted, exculpatory, and not unreasonable explanation of his possession of a stolen moped — that he bought it at a flea market — rendered the state’s case, which was based solely on the inference provided by Section 812.022(2), Florida Statutes (1979),1 without any additional incriminating circumstances, insufficient as a matter of law to establish guilt. Fisk v. State, 138 Fla. 815, 190 So. 10 (1939); A. R. v. State, supra, and cases cited; Schectman v. State, 220 So.2d 657 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); see State v. Young, 217 So.2d 567 (Fla. 1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 853, 90 S.Ct. 112, 24 L.Ed.2d 101 (1969); compare Burroughs v. State, 221 So.2d 159 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); Borghese v. State, 158 So.2d 785 (Fla.3d DCA 1963).

Reversed.

. (2) Proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen, [e. s.]

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.