JOHN MCLEAN AND WILLIAM PEARSON, 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.
McLean and Pearson were indicted for felony larceny of a cow valued at twenty-five dollars, but the jury found them guilty and assessed the property's value at ten dollars. The Florida Supreme Court held that a Circuit Court retains jurisdiction over lesser included offenses even when the jury's valuation would place the offense within an inferior court's exclusive jurisdiction, affirming the conviction and sentence.
The Circuit Court properly retained jurisdiction and could convict for the lesser included offense. Once a Circuit Court acquires jurisdiction based on an indictment charging a felony, it has authority under Florida law to convict and sentence for any lesser offense included within that charge, regardless of whether the lesser offense would ordinarily fall within an inferior court's jurisdiction.
“In criminal cases the jurisdiction is determined by the charge made. When the court has acquired the jurisdiction in such a case by reason of such charge, it has, under the law, jurisdiction of all lesser offences included within such charge.”
This establishes the core principle that jurisdictional basis flows from the indictment, not from the jury's valuation of property or determination of the actual offense grade.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn October 1884, McLean and Pearson were indicted for stealing a cow valued at twenty-five dollars. They were tried in March 1886, and the jury found …
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
Me. Justice YanYalkenbuegh
delivered the opinion of the court:
In October, 1884, McLean and Pearson were indicted for larceny in stealing one cow of the value of twenty-five dollars. They were tried in March, 1886, and the jury found them guilty, and the value of the property ten dollars.
They moved in arrest of judgment, “because the verdict of the jury finds the value of the heifer stolen * * ten dollars which makes the taking petit larceny and cognizable by a Justice’s Court, and that this court has no juris diction to punish.” The court overruled the motion and sentenced the defendants to pay a fine of fifty dollars each, and the costs. Prom this judgment and sentence by writ of error the case is in this court. The errors alleged are, that the court had no jurisdiction of the offence for which judgment of conviction was rendered, the property stolen being of the value of ten dollars as found by the verdict of the jury, and in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment for the same reason.
The indictment charges a felony in that the defendants “ with force and arms at and in the county of Hillsborough aforesaid one cow of the value of twenty-five dollars, * * then and there being found, feloniously did steal, take and carry away, contraiy,” &c., &c.
Justices of the Peace have no jurisdiction to try felonies. In cases of larceny, not charged as a second offence, where the value of the property stolen does not exceed twenty dollars, they have jurisdiction by statute. McG. Dig., page 662, § 1. Section 15, article 6, of the Constitution, authorizes the Legislature to fix the power of Justices of the Peace in criminal cases, as follows: “ in criminal cases their power shall be fixed by law. Their powers, duties and responsibilities shall be regulated by law.” In section 8 of the same article, Circuit Courts are given original jurisdiction “ of all criminal cases, except such as may be cognizable by law by inferior courts.”
Section 1 of chapter 32T1 of Laws, approved February é, 1881, especially provides that when any person is tried in any Circuit Court of this State for an offence of which such Circuit Court has original jurisdiction, and such person is found to be guilty of any lesser offence included in the offence for which indictment or information is filed against him, and for which he is being tried, and is not found guilty of the greater offence, he may be convicted in said court and sentenced for such lesser offence, though it would be an offence of such a nature as would come originally within the jurisdiction of an inferior court. We-cannot see that this statute is in conflict with the Constitution. In criminal cases the jurisdiction is determined by the charge made. When the court has acquired the jurisdiction in such a case by reason of such charge, it has, under the law, jurisdiction of all lesser offences included within such charge. Jurisdiction is determined by the indictment, and the motion in arrest of judgment was properly overruled and the judgment of the court below is-affirmed.
Ex parte Donahue, 65 Cal., 474; State vs. Reaves, 85 N. C., 553; State vs. Pat Malloy, 30 La. Ann., 61; Ingle vs. The State, 4 Texas Ct. App., 91; Montgomery vs. The State, 4 Texas Ct. App., 140; Harberger vs. The State, Ib., 26; People vs. Holland, 59 Cal., 364.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Carbajal v. State, 75 So. 3d 258 (Fla. 2011)…tionary 767 (5th ed. 1979)). Pursuant to section 26.012(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2001), at the time Carba-jal was charged, the circuit courts had — as they continue to have — subject matter jurisdiction over “all felonies.” See also McLean v. State, 23 Fla. 281, 2 So. 5, 5 (1887) (“In criminal cases the jurisdiction is determined by the charge made.”). Because the information filed in this case charged Carbajal with multiple felonies, the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction over Carbajal’s case.…
-
Pope v. State, 268 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…re aware that it is a felony to “sell,” i. e., deliver for a consideration, any amount of cannabis. See § 404.01, F.S.1971, F.S.A., defining “delivery”. But this is irrelevant to the possession charge herein involved. . Cf., McLean v. State (1887), 23 Fla. 281, 2 So. 5. See, also, 9 Fla.Jur., Criminal Law, § 93, et seq. . 9 Fla.Jur., Criminal Law, id. . Cf., State ex rel. Shargaa v. Culver (Fla.1959), 113 So. 2d 383. . See, e. g., State v. Evans (Fla.App.1969), 226 So. 2d 548, cert. denied 229 So. 2d 2…
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. Harlis Sellers v. Parker, 87 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1924)…cipal judge may impose a longer term of imprisonment on some offenders than on others within the limits fixed by the ordinance, does not affect the validity of the ordinance or the sentence in this case which is the minimum term of imprisonment. See 23 Fla. 281. The laws of the State do not require the judge of a municipal court to be an attorney at law; and if the judge [*193] of such court is not an attorney at law, his official acts as such judge are not thereby rendered illegal. Affirmed. West and T…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence