DADE CARNLEY, 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.
Dade Carnley was convicted of grand larceny for stealing hogs, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed because the State failed to prove an essential element of the crime—that the stolen property was valued at twenty dollars or more. The court held that essential elements of a crime cannot rest on inference or conjecture and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The conviction must be reversed because the State failed to prove an essential element of grand larceny—the minimum value of the stolen property. Essential elements of a crime cannot be left to inference or conjecture; they must be affirmatively proven as alleged. The evidence could have supported a conviction for petit larceny but not for grand larceny.
“To establish guilt upon this charge proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the property stolen was of the value of twenty dollars or more is required.”
Establishes the foundational rule that grand larceny requires proof of minimum value as an essential element
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarnley was indicted jointly with William Carnley for larceny of hogs valued at more than twenty dollars. After severance, Carnley was tried separatel…
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
West, J.
Plaintiff in error, referred to herein as defendant, was indicted jointly with William Carnley for the larceny of property of a value of more than twenty dollars. The property alleged to have been stolen was certain de scribed hogs, the property of another. There was a severance and upon trial of defendant a verdict of guilty as charged was returned. To the judgment imposing sentence upon him this writ of error was taken.
To establish guilt upon this charge proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the property stolen was of the value of twenty dollars or more is required. Curington v. State, 80 Fla. 494, 86 South. Rep. 344; Whitehead v. State, 20 Fla. 841; Francis v. State, 87 Miss. 493, 39 South. Rep.
897. In the absence of such evidence 'the charge is not proved and a verdict finding the accused guilty of such crime should not be permitted to stand. There is competent evidence in the record of the market value of hogs by weight in the vicinity in which the alleged theft occurred. But there is no sufficient proof of the weight of the stolen hogs to sup - port a conviction of grand larceny. The owner as a witness for the State testified that “these hogs weighed about a hundred pounds.” “Yes, sir, abont one hundred pounds dressed.”- He did not say that each of the hogs weighed one hundred pounds, nor was it shown by any evidence that the aggregate weight of the hogs was sufficient, multiplied by the proved market value per pound, to amount to twenty dollars or more in value. It is true that it may be inferred that the witness intended to say that each one of the hogs would weigh one hundred pounds, that the three would weigh three hundred pounds, and this aggregate weight at the market value shown would prove the stolen property to be of the value of twenty dollars or more. But essential elements of a crime cannot be left to inference or conjecture. The accused is presumed to be innocent and every essential element of the crime must be proved as alleged. This is especially true in this class of cases, where the grade of the offense depends upon the value of the property stolen. Sykes v. State, 78 Fla. 167, 82 South. Rep. 778; Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213, 63 South. Rep. 418; Cloud v. State, 64 Fla. 237, 60 South. Rep.
180.
The evidence woiild support a conviction of petit larceny, but the verdict found defendant guilty as charged and sentence was imposed accordingly.
Because of the failure to prove an essential element of the crime charged and of which defendant was convicted, there was error in denying the motion for a new trial for which the judgment must be reversed.
Reversed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)…he stolen articles to Sears without more. Proof of the element of value is essential to a conviction for grand larceny and must be established by the State beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Carnley v. State (1921), 82 Fla. 282, 89 So. 808. In determining the value of property, proof thereof may be shown by such elements or facts affecting the question as may exist. Recourse may be had to the items of cost, as well as the utility and use of the property. Sullivan v. Lear (1887), 23 Fl…
-
Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1935)…versed. Stewart v. State, 58 Fla. 97, 50 So. 642. Essential elements of the crime cannot be left to inference or conjecture. The accused is presumed to be innocent and every essential element of the crime must be proven as alleged. Carnley v. State, 82 Fla. 282, 89 So. 808. There are no presumptions against the defendant. Every essential element of the crime charged [*56] must be established against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction is warranted. Sykes v. State, 78 Fla. 167, 82 So.…
-
Marrero v. State, 71 So. 3d 881 (Fla. 2011)…, 746 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), approved, 783 So. 2d 967 (Fla.2001), and Miller v. State, 667 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), along with decisions of this Court in Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla.1974), and Carnley v. State, 82 Fla. 282, 89 So. 808 (1921). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. FACTS Marrero drove his Ford F150 pickup truck through the entrance of the Micco-sukee Casino building located in Miami-Dade County. The entrance consisted of four impact-resistant g…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1913)
- Synes v. State, 78 Fla. 167 (Fla. 1919)
- Curington v. State, 80 Fla. 494 (Fla. 1920)
- Milton v. Jackson Cnty., 80 Fla. 516 (Fla. 1920)
- Cloud v. State, 64 Fla. 237 (Fla. 1912)
- Hilliard Whitehead v. State, 20 Fla. 841 (Fla. 1884)