final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lower
Tribunal No. 18-826 Orlando Prescott, Judge.
J. Martinez, Public Defender and Deborah Prager, Assistant
Public Defender, for appellant.
Moody, Attorney General, and Kayla Heather McNab, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
FERNANDEZ, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ.
the juvenile, appeals the trial court's order withholding
adjudication of delinquency and placing him on probation. We
reverse as to the first issue K.R. raises because he is
correct regarding the charge for carrying a concealed weapon.
However, we affirm on K.R.'s second issue on appeal
because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
recalling a State witness.
State charged K.R. with violating section 790.01(1), Florida
Statutes (2017) by carrying a concealed weapon and violating
section 790.115(2), Florida Statutes (2017), by possessing a
weapon on school property. The weapon alleged in each count
was "a knife."
adjudicatory hearing, the State called two witnesses: Officer
Fonseca, a Miami-Dade Schools Resource Officer, and Clinton
Bales, the Assistant Principal at Gateway Environmental K-8
Center, where K.R. was a student. On November 7, 2017, the
day of the incident, Bales met with K.R., who was
thirteen-years-old at the time, in Bales' office. Bales
searched K.R.'s backpack, and beneath K.R.'s folders,
notebooks, and trash, Bales found a steak knife with a
four-and-a-half-inch blade and a black handle.
Bales began describing the events that led K.R. to his office
that day, the defense objected to hearsay, and the following
sidebar discussion occurred:
STATE: For this line of questioning I'm going to be
asking [Bales] how he got involved in the case which is
present sense impression what led to the search which is
going to be the statements made by other students.
DEFENSE: Judge, at this time there's no relevance to
that. I understand that that would be relevant if Defense
filed a motion to suppress as to why he searched the bag, but
Defense did not file a motion to suppress, so how or why he
searched the bag and all of that is not relevant to the
account itself. I know the State would like to have a story
but in this case it's prejudicial, in fact it much more
substantially outweighs the probative value. This doesn't
go to proving any element of the [indiscernible words].
JUDGE: So you have no problem with them saying who brought
the child down and searched the bag?
DEFENSE: No, we did not file a motion for that.
JUDGE: Okay…. Since reasonable suspicion or probable
cause is not being contested by the Respondent, please
defense claimed that K.R. had gone fishing with his father,
so he had a knife in his backpack. Bales did not notice
fishing bait, other fishing-related items, or an odor of fish
coming K.R.'s backpack. The State rested after it called
Bales and Officer Fonseca. K.R. then moved for judgment of
dismissal, arguing that the State failed to prove the knife
qualified as a concealed weapon for the unlicensed carrying
count and that the State failed to prove K.R. possessed the
knife on school property. At the end of K.R.'s argument,
the trial court sua sponte reopened the State's
case and called Bales back to the stand, stating:
JUDGE: The argument concerning about it being on school
property, the State bifurcated its testimony of Mr. Bales
because probable cause and reasonable suspicion were not an
issue so they started the testimony from bringing him to the
I'm going to let them call Mr. Bales to determine where
they got him from, okay? Call your witness. Because it was
done through concession, so all the other information that
Mr. Bales gleaned during this matter were not brought before
this Court, and it was at the Court's insistence that we
just jump over it based upon the concession made by ...