STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
ANGELIA HUDSON, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court held that petit larceny is not necessarily a lesser included offense of grand larceny. Rather, petit larceny is a category four lesser included offense whose inclusion depends on the accusatory pleading and evidence, particularly whether the value of stolen property is disputed at trial.
Petit larceny is not necessarily a lesser included offense of grand larceny. Rather, petit larceny is a category four lesser included offense that is included only when the evidence regarding the value of the stolen property is in dispute. When the value is undisputed and proven to exceed $100, a jury instruction on petit larceny is properly denied.
[1] Petit larceny is not necessarily a lesser included offense of grand larceny; its inclusion depends on the accusatory pleading and the evidence presented.
[2] A defendant charged with grand larceny is entitled to a jury instruction on petit larceny only if the evidence regarding the value of the stolen property is in dispute.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“IS PETIT LARCENY NECESSARILY A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF GRAND LARCENY?”
The certified question of great public interest that the Supreme Court was asked to decide.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAngelia Hudson was charged with grand larceny. At trial, the evidence established that the value of the property taken was clearly greater than $100. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Accusatory Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, which has been certified to us as a decision passing on the following question of great public interest:
IS PETIT LARCENY NECESSARILY A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF GRAND LARCENY?1
We answer the question in the negative and find that petit larceny may or may not be included in the offense charged depending on the accusatory pleading and the evidence. This is a category four lesser included offense under Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377, 383 (Fla.1968).
Subsequent to the district court decision in the instant case, we held in State v. Paffy, 369 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1979), that a defendant charged with grand larceny is not necessarily entitled to an instruction on the lesser included offense of petit larceny but is entitled to such an instruction if the evidence as to value of the stolen property is in dispute. In Paffy, we stated:
In cases where two crimes are distinguished by the value of the property involved, and the value is not disputed, proof of the greater amount does not constitute proof of the lesser. Proof of the greater amount is not simply an additional element. It is an entirely different element unrelated to proof of the lesser offense. .
369 So. 2d at 342. The crucial element is whether the evidence offered at trial proves only a value of $100 or more or whether the evidence could support a conclusion that the property taken had a value of less than $100.
In the instant case, the only evidence established clearly that the value of the property taken was greater than $100. Under these circumstances, a jury instruction on petit larceny was properly denied.
For the reasons expressed, the decision of the district court is quashed to the extent it holds that even though the value of the property taken is not in dispute, petit larce ny is a necessarily included lesser offense of grand larceny. The other point raised by the state is without merit, and we approve the remainder of the district court’s decision.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, Acting C. J., and BOYD, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur. . Hudson v. State, 364 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Janelle R. Watson v. State, 439 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…se circumstances, where the evidence adduced at trial could not reasonably support the conclusion that the stolen property had a value of less than $100, the trial court did not err in refusing to give the requested instruction. See State v. Hudson, 373 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1979) (citing State v. Paffy, 369 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1979)). See also In re Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 431 So. 2d 594 (Fla.1981). AFFIRMED. OTT, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN and SCHEB, JJ., concur.…
-
Glover v. State, 384 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Hudson, 373 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1979). ANSTEAD, MOORE and HURLEY, JJ., concur.…
-
O'Patrick v. State, 546 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. State v. Hudson, 373 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1979); State v. Paffy, 369 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1979); Gilford v. State, 313 So. 2d 729 (Fla.1975); Watson v. State, 439 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 206 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1968)
- State v. Paffy, 369 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1979)
- Angelia Hudson v. State, 364 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)