M. L. MASTERS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
This case reviews a larceny conviction where the defendant found a stray heifer and later sold it. The appellate court found that while the defendant's actions constituted a wrongful conversion, they did not meet the legal definition of larceny due to the absence of a felonious intent at the time of taking possession.
No, the appellant's actions did not constitute larceny. While the sale of the heifer was a wrongful conversion, the evidence did not establish the necessary felonious intent to steal at the time the appellant initially came into possession of the animal.
“Larceny is the stealing, taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with intent to deprive the owner thereof of his property permanently, or to convert it to the taker’s or some one else’s use. And in order for a conviction to be had on the charge of larceny, there must have been a felonious intent, that is, a conscious purpose to steal that which did not belong to the taker, the felonious intent to steal and take, and there must have been a taking and there must have been a carrying away, some times referred to as asportation.”
This quote defines the legal elements of larceny as charged by the judge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant found a heifer in his pasture that did not belong to him. He made efforts to return the heifer to its owner, but it repeatedly returned …
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 Definition cases and more on FLexlaw
It appears that appellant-defendant found a heifer in his pasture which was not his; that he inquired of one Brannon if he had lost a heifer — Brannon replied that he had and promised to come to Master’s pasture and ascertain if the heifer was his. Brannon did not do so promptly and Masters inquired further of Brannon on occasions and each time Bran-.non promised to go and see if it was his heifer. Doubtless it was Brannon’s heifer.
There is substantial evidence showing that Masters on several occasions had the heifer put out of his pasture but that she would later be found to have returned to the pasture; that Masters sold the heifer but that Masters was not present when the buyer came and took her away.
Without further elaboration it appears to us that under the circumstances of this case there was no larceny.
As the Ju4ge correctly charged the jury the offense of larceny has been defined:
*618“Larceny is the stealing, taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with intent to deprive the owner thereof of his property permanently, or to convert it to the taker’s or some one else’s use. And in order for a conviction to be had on the charge of larceny, there must have been a felonious intent, that is, a conscious purpose to steal that which did not belong to the taker, the felonious intent to steal and take, and there must have been a taking and there must have been a carrying away, some times referred to as asportation.”
Under other circumstances the selling of the heifer .of another might be larceny but here the possession of the heifer by Masters was not acquired by a felonious act. Had not the means by which Masters became possessed been established the sale might have established larceny.
The evidence is sufficient to establish a wrongful conversion of the heifer but insufficient to establish an intent to steal as defined in law.
The judgment appealed is reversed.
TERRELL, Acting Chief Justice, BUFORD, and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reid v. The Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & George J. Saunders, 188 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…And in order for a conviction to be had on the charge of larceny, there must have been a felonious intent, that is, a conscious purpose to steal that which did not belong to the taker, the felonious intent to steal and take. Masters v. State, 1947, 159 Fla. 617, 32 So. 2d 276; Canada v. State, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 753. The criminal intention constitutes the offense and it is the criterion which distinguishes it from trespass. It is always necessary that it be shown that the property was taken animo fur…
-
Erle W. McGOUGH v. State, 302 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1974)…stantial evidence, such proof must not only be consistent with guilt but also inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Lockett v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 262 So. 2d 253; Mayo v. State, 71 So. 2d 899 (Fla.1954); Masters v. State, 159 Fla. 617, 32 So. 2d 276 (1947). Probability cannot be the basis for guilt. In the interest of justice, however, we will treat the remaining error urged by petitioner, that is, whether it was proper to permit an accountant’s expert testimony, in the nature o…
-
Canada v. State, 139 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…preme Court of Florida as the stealing, taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with intent to deprive the owner thereof of his property permanently, or to convert it to the taker’s or someone else’s use. Masters v. State, 1947, 159 Fla. 617, 32 So. 2d 276. In addition to the element of asportation, it is necessary to show that a person charged with larceny possessed a felonious intent, that is, a conscious purpose to steal that which did not belong to him. Maddox v. State, Fla.1958, 38…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence