Case Name: R.B., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-09-18
Citations: 566 So. 2d 931
Docket Number: No. 90-62
Parties: R.B., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before JORGENSON, COPE and LEVY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 566
Pages: 931–931

Head Matter:
R.B., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 90-62.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 18, 1990.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Deborah R. Waks, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, COPE and LEVY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
R.B. was adjudicated delinquent for possession of cocaine and for obstruction of a police officer in the performance of his duty. He does not contest the adjudication with respect to the cocaine charge, but contends that the State failed to exclude his reasonable hypothesis of innocence, see D.M. v. State, 394 So.2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), as to the obstruction charge. R.B. contends, in essence, that his failure to comply with the order to stop was not wrongful because he did not know that the person (dressed in plain clothes) who ordered him to stop was a policeman. Taking the record in the light most favorable to the State, R.B.'s hypothesis of innocence was negated by the fact that while running away, R.B. threw down a change purse containing cocaine. That action was consistent with knowledge that the pursuing person was a policeman, and inconsistent with R.B.'s claimed lack of knowledge. As R.B.'s hypothesis of innocence was, in the circumstances, an unreasonable one, the adjudication of delinquency was entirely proper.
Affirmed.