D.S. v. State
D.S. v. State
Opinion of the Court
D.S., a child, appeals his adjudication of delinquency and disposition for improper exhibition of a deadly weapon.
During his adjudicatory hearing, witnesses testified that they saw D.S. and two other children discharging BB or pellet guns at the mobile home of the victim. Two adults, the victim, and a neighbor saw D.S. shoot his gun at the victim’s home. The victim, in addition to testifying and identifying D.S. as one of the children shooting the guns, showed a videotape he made during the shooting.
A deputy was called to the mobile home park to investigate the shooting of a cat, the damage to a rear window of a car caused by a BB or pellet, and the shooting of the victim’s mobile home. The deputy testified that when she arrived to investigate the shootings, she watched the videotape and she observed pellet holes on the northwest and north sides of the victim’s mobile home. She questioned D.S. after reading him his Miranda rights.
When D.S. moved for a judgment of acquittal, he admitted, for the purposes of the motion, every conclusion favorable to the state that the fact-finder might reasonably infer from the evidence. Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1974); Cox v. State, 711 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Fletcher v. State, 472 So.2d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Therefore, the question is whether there was sufficient evidence presented to the trial court to support its decision. In this case, the evidence, which included the eyewitnesses and the videotape, was overwhelming that D.S. shot the gun over and at the victim’s mobile home and into trees which hang over the roads and the homes in the mobile home park. Therefore, the trial court properly denied the motion.
Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency and remand to the trial court to specify that the term of community control is for a maximum of one year.
ADJUDICATION AFFIRMED; DISPOSITION VACATED and REMANDED.
. § 790.10, Fla. Stat. (1997).
. The victim had frequent conflict with D.S. and his family and had been advised by law enforcement officers to videotape incidents when they occurred. D.S. and his family lived directly behind the victim.
.Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)
. D.S.’ birthday was the next day.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.