JESS DAVIS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
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 larceny conviction due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the necessity of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, the evidence was insufficient because it failed to establish that the cow was taken without the owner's consent, which is a necessary element of larceny.
“In cases of larceny it is necessary that every essential ingredient of the crime be proven by some evidence and that such evidence must be sufficient to establish every essential element against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction may lawfully be had.”
Establishes the standard of proof required for a larceny conviction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of larceny of a cow and sentenced to two years in prison. The record did not show arraignment or a plea. Crucially, the ev…
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.
Per Curiam.
The defendant in error was convicted in the Circuit Court of Highlands County of the offense of the larceny of a cow and was sentenced to serve two years in State Prison for such offense.
From such conviction he sued out writ of error. The transcript of the record fails to show arraignment or plea.
An examination of the evidence as contained in the record discloses that there was no proof that the cow which was alleged to have been the subject of larceny was taken, if at all, by the defendant without the consent of the owner. In cases of larceny it is necessary that every essential ingredient of the crime be proven by some evidence and that such evidence must be sufficient to establish every essential element against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction may lawfully be had. Sykes v. State, 78 Fla. 167, 82 South. Rep. 778; Albritton v. State, 81 Fla. 684, 88 South. Rep. 623. Upon the authority of the opinions in the cases above cited this case should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial, and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
G. A. D. v. State, 340 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…failed to adduce any evidence as to the material elements of non-consent and intent to permanently deprive. Therefore, the juvenile’s right to due process of law was violated. See: Albritton v. State, 81 Fla. 684, 88 So. 623 (1921); Davis v. State, 92 Fla. 209, 109 So. 301 (1926); Bowles v. State, 153 Fla. 219,14 So. 2d 269 (1943); Caves v. State, 302 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Austin v. Wainwright, 305 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Risebrough v. State, 313 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Thompson v.…
Authorities Cited
- Synes v. State, 78 Fla. 167 (Fla. 1919)
- Albritton v. State, 81 Fla. 684 (Fla. 1921)
- The Grand Lodge of Knights of Pythias of N. Am. v. Stokes, 81 Fla. 699 (Fla. 1921)