COLEMAN DAVIS, TED TRUITT AND R. V. HELMS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
COLEMAN DAVIS, TED TRUITT AND R. V. HELMS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
97 Fla. 987
Florida Supreme Court (1929)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
Plaintiffs in error were convicted' of the larceny of a cow. The contention made in their behalf is that there was no evidence of “taking and carrying away.” There was, however, sufficient evidence to show that the cow was butchered at the place where she was shot, and the operations necessary to prepare the beef for market. almost completed, when the plaintiffs in error were discovered and ran away. The judgment of conviction is affirmed on authority of Driggers v. State, 118 So. R. 20.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lyons v. State, 47 So.2d 541 (Fla. 1950)…eing shot, it fell from its standing position to the ground and on its side in a prone position and, therefore, the essentials of asportation were clearly proven. The rule in the Driggers case has been reaffirmed by this Court. See Davis v. State, 97 Fla. 987, 122 So. 579; Fitch v. State, 135 Fla. 361, 185 So. 435, 125 A.L.R. 360. The facts in the case at bar are distinguishable from the facts in the Driggers case. In the Driggers case the defendants went into the field where the owner kept his cattle.…
-
Mitchem v. State, 114 Fla. 537 (Fla. 1934)…nce as a whole to have been captiously disregarded by the jury, that a reversal of a judgment of guilt is warranted in this Court. Bargesser v. State, 95 Fla. 401, 116 Sou. Rep. 11; Kilcrease v. State, 96 Fla. 264, 117 Sou. Rep. 862; Davis v. State, 97 Fla. 987, 122 Sou. Rep. 579. We find no captious disregard of defendant’s attempted explanation evidenced by the probative effect of the whole testimony in the record here, so the judgment must be affirmed. Affirmed. Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell an…