TALBERT TUCKER AND ELLIOT TUCKER, PLAINTIFFS 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 receiving stolen property due to a fatal variance between the charges and the evidence presented. The court found that the defendants were charged with receiving live cattle but the proof only showed they received carcasses and hides.
Yes, there was a fatal variance between the allegations and the proof, requiring reversal of the conviction.
“After reading the record carefully wo find no evidence that defendants received live cattle, but only carcasses and hides of dead animals.”
The State's concession on appeal acknowledging the variance between the charges and the evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTalbert and Elliot Tucker were charged with unlawfully receiving and concealing stolen cattle. The jury found them guilty of receiving $320 worth of p…
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 Receiving Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The information herein charges that the defendants “unlawfully and feloniously did receive and aid in the concealment of” “thirty-two head of cattle, of the value of Four Hundred Dollars, ’ ’ the defendants ‘ ‘ then and there well knowing that the said property, goods and chattels had before then been unlawfully and feloniously stolen, taken and carried away. ’ ’ The verdict is “ We the jury find the defendants, Elliot Tucker and Talbert Tucker, guilty to the extent of $320 worth of property. AA7e find the defendant, Charlie Tucker, not guilty. So say we all. ’ ’ This writ of error was taken to a sentence of four years in the penitentiary. The brief filed by the Attorney General is as follows:
‘ ‘ The information alleges an unlawful receiving and aiding in concealment of thirty-two head of cattle known to be stolon and the presumption is that the information refers to live cattle.
“After reading the record carefully wo find no evidence that defendants received live cattle, but only carcasses and hides of dead animals.
“On account of this variance between the information and the proof we do not feel that we can endeavor to sustain the verdict. ’ ’
As the confession by the State of material error in the procedure, viz: a fatal variance between the allegata and probata in the ease, has support in the transcript of the record brought here on writ of error, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
West, C. J., and Terrell and Strum, J. J., concur.