JAMES SPANISH, 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.
James Spanish was convicted of robbery from the person for allegedly stealing $17 from Raymond Killpatrick. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction because the State proved only the total value of money taken ($17) but failed to prove the specific denominations of currency (bills vs. coins) as alleged in the information, despite the witness being available to testify to these details.
The conviction must be reversed because the State failed to prove the material allegations regarding the specific denominations of the money taken. The guilt of the defendant depends on proof of the material charges in the information—here, the specific composition of the $17 taken—not merely the total sum value.
“The guilt of the plaintiffs in error under this statute does not depend upon proof of each item of property taken as alleged, but is made out by proof that some of the property alleged, of some value, was taken in the manner alleged. Instead of proving one material charge of the information as to the property taken, the State proved only the immaterial averment that the sum total of the value of what was taken amounted to seventeen dollars.”
Establishes that while not every item must be proven, the material allegations of the information must be proven, and the State's failure to prove the specific denominations constitutes failure to prove a material charge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Spanish was charged with robbery from the person of Raymond Killpatrick. The information alleged that Spanish took a ten dollar bill, a five dol…
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 Failure Of Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
To a conviction of robbery from the person James Spanish takes writ of error. The information charges that he took from the person of one Raymond Killpatrick, a ten dollar bill, a five dollar bill, a one dollar bill and a silver dollar, all of the value of seventeen dolllars. The proof was only that he took seventeen dollars, but nothing to indicate how this amount was made up.
It is true that as the crime is not graded by the value of the article taken, it is immaterial to prove the value as laid, 2 Bishop’s Criminal Procedure, paragraph 1066, but as we said in Broad Williams et al. v. State, 42 Fla. 205, text 209, 27 South. Rep. 898, “The guilt of the plaintiffs in error under this statute does not depend upon proof of each item of property taken as alleged, but is made out by proof that some of the property alleged, of some value, was taken in the manner alleged. Instead of proving one material charge of the information as to the property taken, the State proved only the immaterial averment that the sum total of the value of what was taken amounted to seventeen dollars.
So far as the evidence goes this sum may have been made up of half dollars, quarters, dimes, nickels or pennies. The defendant might again have been put to trial for this same offense, the new information charging the property taken to have consisted of these minor coins, and the defendant would have had little difficulty in pleading autrefois Coowict.
The State had sufficient information upon which to charge specifically the exact denominations of the monies taken. The party from whose person the money was alleged to have been taken was upon the witness stand and asked as to what was taken, but for some unknown reason the State failed to develop from this witness the kind of money that was taken, despite the decision of this court as to the necessity of such proof. The motion for a new, trial directed specific attention to this omission, and the error should have been then and there corrected.
We have gone far in upholding the verdicts of juries, but we cannot overlook so serious a failure of proof. The error is substantial and not merely technical, and the judgment must be reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stephens v. State, 92 Fla. 43 (Fla. 1926)…eged that the property obtained by the robbery consisted of several distinct articles, and it was held that even if there was a variance in the proof as to one of such articles, such variance was immaterial. But in the case of Spanish v. The State, 67 Fla. 414, 65 [*46] So. 457, it was held that, ‘ ‘ Under an information charging the robbery of a ten dollar bill, a five dollar bill, a one dollar bill, and a silver dollar, all of the value of Seventeen Dollars, it was not sufficient to prove merely that Se…
Authorities Cited
- Broad Williams v. State, 42 Fla. 205 (Fla. 1900)