BASS HIGGINBOTHAM, 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 larceny of a bull, holding that the evidence supported the verdict and that the defendant's prior acquittal on charges of larceny of a cow and steer did not entitle him to discharge.
No, the defendant is not entitled to discharge. The evidence supports the conviction for larceny of a bull, and the prior reversal and acquittal do not preclude a retrial on the supported charge.
“As there is ample evidence to sustain the verdict under the indictment charging larceny of “one bull,” and as no material errors of law or of procedure appear, the judgment is affirmed.”
This quote establishes the court's conclusion that the evidence supported the conviction and no reversible errors occurred.
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 indicted for the larceny of "one bull, one steer, one cow." A previous conviction for larceny of a bull was reversed due to…
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 Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Upon an indictment for the larceny of “one bull, one steer, one cow, of the property of Richard Windham, the plaintiff in error was convicted of the “larceny of one bull.” This conviction was reversed because the evidence related to a “cow” or to an “animal” as being the subject of the larceny charged thus showing the verdict to be not supported by the evidence adduced at the trial. Higginbotham v. State, 78 Fla. 114, 82 South. Rep. 601.
On another trial on the same indictment the defendant was found “guilty” and to a judgment of conviction on the verdict took writ of error. A contention, sought to be presented by plea, that at the former trial the defendant by being found guilty of the larceny of a bull was in law acquitted of the charge of larceny of a cow and of a steer and that the reversal of the conviction of larceny of a bull entitled the defendant to a discharge under the indictment, was manifestly unavailing if it had been so presented as to require consideration of the plea. In the charge the jury were instructed .as to the acquittal on the charge of larceny of a cow and a steer, and their consideration was expressly confined to the charge of the larceny of “one bull.” No special instructions were requested and the charges given were comprehensive and not in any way prejudicial to the defendant. As there is ample evidence to sustain the verdict under the indictment charging larceny of “one bull,” and as no material errors of law or of procedure appear, the judgment is affirmed.
Browne, C. J. and Taylor, Éllis and West, J. J., concur’.