HILLIARD WHITEHEAD, 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.
Hilliard Whitehead was convicted of larceny and sentenced to a $200 fine, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed and ordered a new trial because the trial record contained no evidence of the value of the stolen property, which was essential to determining whether the offense constituted a misdemeanor or felony under state law.
The judgment is reversed and a new trial is ordered. The value of stolen property must be proven in evidence to determine whether an offense constitutes a misdemeanor or felony and to establish the appropriate penalty, and a conviction cannot stand without such proof.
“The value of the goods so taken must appear in the evidence in order to determine the grade of the offence and the penalty to be imposed.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that proof of property value is essential to the determination of larceny charges and sentencing under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn May 1874, Whitehead was indicted for larceny in Jackson County. He was tried in May 1888, and the jury found him guilty. The indictment alleged he …
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.
Mr. Justice VanValkenburgii
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In May, A. D. 1874, the grand jury of the county of Jackson indicted Hilliard Whitehead for larceny. He was tried at the May Circuit in the year 1888, the jury finding him guilty. Counsel for the defendant moved, in the first instance, to quash the indictment, which motion was denied by the court. They then moved for a new trial, which motion was also denied.
A writ of error was then procured and the cause brought to this court. The court sentenced the prisoner to pay a fine of two hundred dollars and the costs of the suit.
The statutes of the State provide that “ whoever is convicted of stealing property not exceeding in value twenty dollars shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, or to be imprisoned in the county jail,” &c. McC. Dig., 388, §1.
In case of larceny, when the value of the property does not exceed one hundred dollars, the penalty is “by imprisonment in the State penitentiary or county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding three hundred dollars.” “If the property stolen exceeds the value of one hundred dollars,” the penalty is by “ imprisonment in the State penitentiary uot exceeding five years, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars and imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year.” McC. Dig., 360, 317. The indictment alleges that the defendant “ did steal, take and carry away fifteen pairs of shoes of the value of thirty dollars; two pairs of fine boots of the value of sixteen dol lars ; one' piece of dress goods of the value of fifteen dollars ; one suit of clothes of the value of twenty dollars.”
The bill of exceptions signed and sealed brings up the evidence taken on the trial, and we look in vain in that evidence for any proof of the value of the goods so alleged to have been stolen, or any part or parcel of them. It is impossible to see how the jury determined that the value was greater than to constitute a misdemeanor. The value of the goods so taken must appear in the evidence in order to determine the grade of the offence and the penalty to be imposed.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dade Carnley v. State, 82 Fla. 282 (Fla. 1921)…s writ of error was taken. To establish guilt upon this charge proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the property stolen was of the value of twenty dollars or more is required. Curington v. State, 80 Fla. 494, 86 South. Rep. 344; Whitehead v. State, 20 Fla. 841; Francis v. State, 87 Miss. 493, 39 South. Rep. 897. In the absence of such evidence 'the charge is not proved and a verdict finding the accused guilty of such crime should not be permitted to stand. There is competent evidence in the record of the…
-
Lang v. State, 42 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1900)…d the punishment confinement in the county jail not exceeding three months., or fine not exceeding' one hundred dollars. Under this, statute the testimony should show property of sufficient value- to sustain the sentence imposed. Whitehead v. State, 20 Fla. 841. In identifying the property alleged to- have been stolen the evidence must substantially correspond with the description in the indictment, in. order to- sustain the verdict. Glover v. State, 22 Fla. 493; Hart v. State, 55 Ind. 599; Hamilton v. Sta…