BASS HIGGINBOTHAM, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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 reversed a conviction for larceny because the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence presented at trial. The court found a fatal discrepancy between the alleged crime and the jury's finding.
No, the jury's verdict was not supported by the evidence. There was no legal basis in the evidence for the verdict of guilty of larceny of a bull.
“The jury found him “guilty of larceny of one bull belonging to Richard Windham.””
Describes the specific verdict returned by the jury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was charged with the larceny of a bull, a steer, and a cow. The jury found the defendant "guilty of larceny of one bull belonging to Ric…
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 Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
— Higginbotham was charged with the larceny of “one bull, one steer, one cow, of the property of Richard Windham.” The jury found him “guilty of larceny of one bull belonging to Richard Windham.” Writ of error was taken to a penitentiary sentence.
The evidence is that the defendant below was discovered skinning a cow; and there is no evidence that the defendant committed larceny of a bull. Even if the evidence is sufficient to support a finding of larceny of a cow belonging to Richard Windham, the verdict is “guilty of larceny of one lull,” when the only evidence relates to a “cow” or to an “animal,” no reference being made to a lull in the testimony. The verdict has no legal basis in the evidence and the judgment is reversed for a new trial.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grissom v. State, 405 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…o dispute as to the animal taken, and appellant’s counsel repeatedly referred to the male calf as a “cow.” We therefore conclude that in this case the variance was immaterial and does not preclude conviction. Appellant cites Higginbotham v. State, 78 Fla. 114, 82 So. 601 (1919), and Mobley v. State, 57 Fla. 22, 49 So. 941 (1909), but these authorities are unavailing in the present case. Neither Higginbotham nor Mobley involved circumstances similar to this case, and the decision in Mobley is expressly pr…
-
Bass Higginbotham v. State, 80 Fla. 306 (Fla. 1920)…f one bull.” This conviction was reversed because the evidence related to a “cow” or to an “animal” as being the subject of the larceny charged thus showing the verdict to be not supported by the evidence adduced at the trial. Higginbotham v. State, 78 Fla. 114, 82 South. Rep. 601. On another trial on the same indictment the defendant was found “guilty” and to a judgment of conviction on the verdict took writ of error. A contention, sought to be presented by plea, that at the former trial the defendant b…