VANDER SHIVER, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for cow larceny, holding that proof of lawful custody and right to possession is sufficient to establish ownership as laid in the indictment, even if the defendant claims permission to sell the property.
Yes, the court held that proof of lawful custody and entitlement to possession is sufficient to establish ownership as alleged in the indictment, and the jury's resolution of conflicting testimony against the defendant was proper.
“where an indictment lays the ownership of stolen property in a particular person and it is shown that the particular person was in the lawful custody of the property and entitled to its possession, there is no material variance between the allegations and proof.”
This quote establishes the legal principle for proving ownership in a larceny case.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of larceny of a cow. The primary argument on appeal was that the ownership of the cow, as alleged in the indictme…
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 Variance Between Allegation And Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
This case comes on writ of error to the Circuit Court of Calhoun County wherein the plaintiff in error was convicted of the larceny of a cow.
The assignment of error attack the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment. The principal contention is that the ownership of the property in Suggs as laid in the indictment was not proven.
This- Court has repeatedly held that where an indictment lays the ownership of stolen property in a particular person and it is shown that the particular person was in the lawful custody of the property and entitled to its possession, there is no material variance between the allegations and proof. See Parker vs. State, 75 Fla. 541, 78 Sou. 980; Mathews vs. State, 85 Fla. 194, 95 Sou. 609, and cases there cited.
It appears that the defendant attempted to defend on the trial upon the theory that Suggs, the alleged owner, had given him, defendant, permission to sell and dispose of the cow in question and he testified to such a state of facts. Suggs denied the existence of any such facts. The *872jury evidently believed Suggs and resolved that a conflict in the testimony against the defendant, in which action the jury was within its proper evidence.
No reversible error appearing in the record, the judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cortes v. State, 135 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1938)…rd shows that the St. Johns River Lines was transporting the property for other persons and that it was in lawful custody of the'property and entitled to its possession. Therefore, there is 'no merit in this contenüon. Shiver v. State, 103 Fla. 871, 138 So. 502; Mathews v. State, 85 Fla. 194, 95 So. 609; Parker v. State, 75 Fla. 741, 78 So. 980, 2 A. L. R. 350. The next question presented by defendant in his brief reads as follows: “Question No. 7. Where it appears from the testimony that certain admissi…
-
Brown v. State, 111 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…rd shows that the St. Johns River Lines was transporting the property for other persons and that it was in lawful custody of the property and entitled to its possession. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention. Shiver v. State, 103 Fla. 871, 138 So. 502; Mathews v. State, 85 Fla. 194, 95 So. 609; Parker v. State, 75 Fla. 741, 78 So. 980, 2 A.L.R. 350.” During the course of the trial it developed that the state’s witnesses who had been placed under the rule for the separation of witnesses, had in t…
-
Jones v. State, 323 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Shiver v. State, 103 Fla. 871, 138 So. 502 (1931); Cortes v. State, 135 Fla. 589, 185 So. 323 (1938). BOYER, C. J., and MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parker v. State, 75 Fla. 741 (Fla. 1918)
- Charnel Mathews v. State, 85 Fla. 194 (Fla. 1923)