JOHN SWILLEY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORILA, 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 larceny where the jury's verdict, when read in conjunction with the charge, sufficiently indicated guilt for grand larceny, despite not explicitly stating the value of the stolen property.
Yes, the verdict is sufficient because it must be read in reference to the charge, and the charge specified an amount exceeding the threshold for grand larceny.
“As tbe verdict should be read with reference to the charge to which it is responsive, the finding necessarily is that the defendant is guilty of the entire offense charged in the single count relating to one act involving the larceny of personal property exceeding twenty dollars in value, making the offense a felony.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for upholding the verdict.
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 charged with larceny of various denominations of bills totaling $101. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, recommending mercy. The…
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 Petit Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Upon a charge of larceny of “one twenty dollar bill of the lawful money of the United States of America and of the value of twenty dollars, divers ten dollar bills of the lawful money of the United States of America and of the value of ten dollars each, divers five dollar bills of the lawful money of the United States of America and of the value of five dollars each, divers one dollar bills of the lawful money of the United States of America and of the value of one dollar each, all of the goods and chattels of one W. C. Knighton and of the total value of one hundred and one dollars,” the jury returned the following verdict: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty and recommend him to the mercy of the court, so say we all.” The defendant moved in arrest of judgment:
“1. Because said verdict does not áhow nor determine whether said larceny is grand larceny or petit larceny.
“2. Because the verdict fails to name the value of the property stolen.
“3. Because the verdict does not fix the value of the property stolen.”
The motion was overruled and Swilley took writ of error to the judgment and sentence imposed as for a felony. As tbe verdict should be read with reference to the charge to which it is responsive, the finding necessarily is that the defendant is guilty of the entire offense charged in the single count relating to one act involving the larceny of personal property exceeding twenty dollars in value, making the offense a felony.
Judgment affirmed.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Channell v. State, 107 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…the jury are sufficient; even though it may be necessary in a given case to construe the verdict in the light of the information to determine such meaning and intention.” See also Henderson v. State, Fla.1951, 55 So. 2d 110; Swilley v. State, 1918, 76 Fla. 535, 80 So. 310; Licata v. State, 1921, 81 Fla. 649, 88 So. 621; and Yarborough v. State, 1927, 94 Fla. 143, 114 So. 237. The history of the case of Elkins v. State, 1928, 95 Fla. 188, 116 So. 243, may be helpful, although the case is not factually in…
-
Barnhill v. State, 41 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1949)…d intention of the jury are sufficient; even though it may be necessary in a given case to construe the verdict in the light of the information to determine such meaning and intention. See Henderson v. State, 55 Fla. 36, 46 So. 151; Swilley v. State,76 Fla. 535, 80 So. 310; Licata v. State, 81 Fla. 649, 88 So. 621. In such cases the verdict should be regarded from the standpoint of the jury's intention and when this can be ascertained such effect should be allowed to the findings, if not inconsistent with…1 / 2
-
Brock v. State, 105 Fla. 579 (Fla. 1932)…fee vs. Stage, 59 Fla. 316, 51 Sou. 555, we said: “A general verdict of guilty on a count charging grand larceny is not fatally defective in form, and will support a conviction for grand larceny.” This enunciation was followed in Swiley vs. State, 76 Fla. 535, 80 Sou. 310, and in Yarborough vs. State, 94 Fla. 143, 114 Sou. 237. The evidence in this ease is conflicting, but those conflicts have been disposed of by the jury adversely to the defendant and as there is substantial evidence upon which the jur…