JAMES CLARK, 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 denied a rehearing, affirming its prior decision that a larceny conviction is valid even if the indictment lists the aggregate value of stolen items and the evidence only proves the theft of some items, as long as the proven items meet the value threshold for conviction.
Yes, proof of ownership of some of the articles alleged to have been stolen, and that such articles are of sufficient value to warrant the verdict and judgment, is sufficient for a larceny conviction.
“In a prosecution for larceny where the articles alleged to have been stolen are separate in kind and numbers, and their value is given only in the aggregate, proof of the ownership as alleged of some of the articles, and that such articles are of sufficient value to warrant the verdict and judgment, is sufficient.”
Establishes the legal standard for proving larceny when multiple items are involved.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of larceny. The indictment listed multiple stolen articles with an aggregate value. The defense argued that a conviction w…
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.
Whitfield, C. J.
In an application it is stated that the court overlooked the contention that as the indictment “only states the collective or aggregate value of different articles to have been stolen, that a conviction is possible only where it is shown by the evidence that the defendant is guilty of the larceny of all the articles,” and that as some of the stolen articles were shown to be the property of a third person there was a fatal variance between the allegations and the proofs. These matters were not over looked by the court. The disposition of the case necessarily showed that the contentions were not tenable.
In a prosecution for larceny where the articles alleged to have been stolen are separate in kind and numbers, and their value is given only in the aggregate, proof of the ownership as alleged of some of the articles, and that such articles are of sufficient value to warrant the verdict and judgment, is sufficient. See Raines v. State, 42 Fla., 141, text 146, 28 South. Rep., 57; 1 Bishop’s New Crim. Proc., Paragraph 488; 25 Cyc. 102-3; Bone v. State, 121 Ga., 147, 48 S. E. Rep., 986; State v. Evans, 23 S. C., 209.
Rehearing denied.
Shackleford and Cockrell, J.J., concur. Taylor, Hocker, and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.