THOMAS WILLIAMS, 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.
Thomas Williams was convicted of larceny of a bull in DeSoto County, Florida in 1903. On appeal, Williams challenged the regularity of the court term, grand jury organization, the indictment, and the jury charge on the elements of larceny, but the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence sufficient and any instructional error immaterial.
The court affirmed the conviction. Questions about court regularity, grand jury organization, and indictment were disposed of by reference to Peeples v. State. Any error in the jury charge regarding the carrying away element of larceny was immaterial because the testimony uncontradicted showed asportation of the property and the defense was based on a claim of right, not whether carrying away occurred.
“When the law speaks of larceny, gentlemen, as the felonious stealing, taking and carrying away, it means the taking of property with intent to steal it, but it does not mean that a man must take it up and carry it away to a distance; they may take possession of the property without removing it any distance, with the felonious intent of depriving the true owner of the possession thereof.”
The jury instruction on larceny that was challenged by the defendant as erroneous
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted of larceny of a bull at a special term of court held in DeSoto County in March 1903. The testimony without contradiction showed…
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 Felonious Taking cases and more on FLexlaw
Maxwerr, J.
J. — The defendant at a special term of court held in DeSoto county in March, 1903, was convicted of the larceny of a bull.
Questions raised by plaintiff in error regarding the regularity of.this term of court, the organization: of the grand jury-and the return and sufficiency of the indictment are disposed of by what is said in the case of Peeples v. State, decided at the present term.
In its charge to the jury the court used the following language: “When the law spea.ks of larceny, gentlemen, as the felonious stealing, taking and carrying away, it means the taking of property with intent to steal it, but it does not mean that a man must take it up and carry it away to a distance; they may take possession of the property without removing it any distance, with the felonious intent of depriving the true owner of the possession thereof.” Upon this charge is predicated the sixth assignment, that “the court erred in charging the jury that the felonious taking of personal property would constitute larceny without the carrying away of the said property.”
In charging that the carrying away need not be to any distance, the court doubtless used the term in the colloquial sense of any great or extended distance. Whether it could -in any case be misleading or induce the belief on the part of the jury that no removal whatever of the property alleged to have been stolen is necessary to constitute larceny, we need not inquire. The testimony, without contradiction, showed asportation of the property, and the defense interposed was that the property was taken under a claim of right. The alleged inaccuracy in the charge,'therefore, was -wholly immaterial to the defendant’s case.
The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.
Carter, P. J., and Cockrell, J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Hocker and Shackleford, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burton Thomas v. State, 47 Fla. 99 (Fla. 1904)…se are submitted on the face of the record, and the assignments.” They must, therefore, be treated as abandoned, as there is no error in the rulings complained of so glaring or patent that argument is not needed to demonstrate it. Williams v. State, 46 Fla. 80, 34 South. Rep. 279, and other cases therein cited; Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 South. Rep. 656. The third, fourth and fifth assignments of error question the propriety of the ruling denying defendant’s motion for a.new trial. This motion…
-
Higginbotham v. State, 155 Fla. 274 (Fla. 1944)…by the trial court. It did not affect the legal or substantial rights of the appellants. It may be considered as surplusage and disregarded. See Kelly v. State, 145 Fla. 491, 199 So. 764; Smith v. State, 129 Fla. 755, 176 So. 781; Williams v. State, 46 Fla. 80, 35 So. 335; Section 54.23 Fla. Stats. 1941 (F.S.A.). Counsel for appellants pose here for adjudication the [*278] question viz: Was it reversible error for the State Attorney to remark to the jury that the defendants were “self-confessed criminals…
-
Presley v. State, 63 Fla. 37 (Fla. 1912)…y feloneous taking or asportation of personal property may be larceny, therefore, the omission of the word “away” from a charge as ot “the feloneous taking and carrying of the personal property of another” is not per se error. See Williams v. State, 46 Fla. 80. A charge containing the words “when a person is found in the exclusive possession of goods recently stolen or has the goods concealed on his premises,” includes the idea that the person knowingly had possession of or concealed the goods. See McDon…