JOHN FORD, 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.
John Ford was convicted of breaking and entering a cotton house with intent to commit grand larceny. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the indictment sufficiently alleged the statutory offense and no material errors occurred at trial.
The indictment sufficiently described the building and the felonious intent (grand larceny), and it was not necessary to describe the specific property intended to be stolen. The trial court's charge to the jury and its procedure of instructing the hung jury to continue deliberating were proper and without material error. Sufficient evidence supported the guilty verdict.
“Grand larceny is a felony. It is the larceny of personal property of $20.00 or more in value. It was not necessary for the indictment to describe the property, the intent to steal which accompanied the breaking and entering.”
Establishes the legal standard that the indictment need not specify the property intended to be stolen when charging breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFord was indicted for breaking and entering a cotton house owned by J. D. Clinton with intent to commit grand larceny. He was convicted and appealed v…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
Upon an indictment charging that John Ford “did unlawfully break and enter a building of another, to-wit, a cotton house, the property of one J. D. Clinton, with intent to commit a felony, to-wit, grand larceny,” he was convicted and took writ of error. The indictment sufficiently described the building alleged to have been broken and entered. See Rimes v. State, 36 Fla. 90, 18 South. Rep. 114. Grand larceny is a felony. It is the larceny of personal property of $20.00 or more in value. It was not necessary for the indictment to describe the property, the intent to steal which accompanied the breaking and entering. The indictment sufficiently alleged the statutory offense.
The defendant could not be misled by the allegations of the indictment or embarrassed by the allegations in concerting his defense.
No material or harmful errors appear in the charges given. See McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 South. Rep. 485, and authorities there cited. Miller v. State, 76 Fla. 518, 80 South. Rep. 314. There was sufficient evidentiary basis for the charges given. No charge on circumstantial evidence was requested, and the law of the case did not require such charge to be given by the court of its own motion.
The transcript of the bill of exceptions shows the following :
“The jury retired to consider their verdict. After remaining in the jury room for about the space of two hours, they returned into the court room and announced that they could not agree, but did not ask for additional instructions; but the court on its own motion gave the following charge:
“ ‘Some jury has got to decide this case and I might as well let you decide it as some other jury, and I am going to ask you to further deliberate and find a verdict if you can. You may now separate until morning, and in the meantime you shall not discuss this • case with any one, or let any one talk to you about it. You shall get back to your room as early as you can tomorrow morning and try to reach a verdict. If this defendant is guilty and you believe him guilty from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, then you find him guilty; if you believe he is not guilty from this evidence or you have a reasonable doubt of his guilt, then find him not guilty.’ ”
No error appears in this procedure of which the defendant can justly complain.
There is evidence legally sufficient to support the verdict, and errors, if any, in admitting testimony were harmless. Counsel for the plaintiff in error has forcefully argued the points reserved in the record, but no material errors are made to appear. Judgment affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Ellis and West, J. J. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leavine v. State, 109 Fla. 447 (Fla. 1933)…a reasonable doubt, a strong probability of crime is not sufficient. Asher v. State, 90 Fla. 75, 105 South. Rep. 140; Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 South. Rep. 350; Hall v. State, 90 Fla. 719; 107 South. Rep. 246. In the case of Ford v. State, 80 Fla. 781, 86 South. Rep. 715, this Court held that where there is sufficient evidentiary basis for charges given and no material error of law appear therein, a mere failure to charge on circumstantial evidence will not cause a reversal of a judgment of convi…
-
Lewis v. The Honorable Nathan Mayo, 127 Fla. 488 (Fla. 1937)…While it is true that the accused might have required a more specific description of the felony referred to in the indictment, it cannot be said that the indictment entirely fails to charge an offense. The case is analogous to that of Ford v. State, 80 Fla. 781, 86 Sou. 715, wherein the sufficiency of an indictment was upheld on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction wherein we said: “Upon an indictment charging that John Ford ‘did unlawfully break and enter a building of another, to-wit, a cotton ho…
-
State v. Mayo, 135 Fla. 601 (Fla. 1938)…, constituted Burglary, and, therefore, it is not suspectible to successful assault in habeas corpus proceedings. It is substantially the same as that which was upheld by this Court in Hunter v. State, 64 Fla. 315, 60 Sou. 786, and in Ford v. State, 80 Fla. 781, 86 Sou. 715. While the judgment and sentence of the court in this case does not follow the exact words which were recommended by this Court in Mathis, et al., v. State, 67 Fla. 277, 64 Sou. 944, it does sufficiently adjudicate that the defendant W…
Authorities Cited
- Angus McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74 (Fla. 1908)
- Jasper Rimes v. State, 36 Fla. 90 (Fla. 1895)
- Miller v. State, 76 Fla. 518 (Fla. 1918)