SAM TAYLOR AND LILLIE MAE WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Citator

Cited By (32 total)

• Gustine v. State, 86 Fla. 24 (Fla. 1923)
  …an.intent to feloniously deprive the owner permanently of the property which'is the subject of the larceny,obut whether such intent ekist'ed, is a question of fact to be determined by the jury from all the circumstances of the case. Grover v. State, 82 Fla. 427, 90 South. Rep. 473; Wharton’s Crim. Law, 11 ed., vol. 2, Sec. 1094. The evidence of the State is to the.effect that the defend [*27] ant got into the automobile, which it is alleged he attempted to steal, and was proceeding to disconnect the wires…
• Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768 (Fla. 1928)
  …lost by a felonious taking, and “while it cannot be established by the confession of the defendant alone, it is the rule that such confessions or admissions may be considered in connection with the other evidence to establish it.” Groover v. State, 82 Fla. 427, 90 So. R. 473. It is not essential that the corpus delicti, in larceny, should be established by evidence independent of that which tends to connect the accused with the commission of the offense. The same evidence which tends to prove one may also…
• Ira Fitch v. State, 135 Fla. 361 (Fla. 1938)
  …fifth, that his dealing with the property constituted a conversion or appropriation of the same; and sixth, that there was a fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of his property.” In this general connection see also Grover v. State, 82 Fla. 727, 90 So. 473, 26 A. L. R. 373; Bussart v. State, 128 Fla. 891, 176 So. 32; Rosenbloom v. State, (Ala.) 98 So. 216. And in Murray v. State, supra, it was saidffiy this Court that: “The chief distinction between larceny and embezzlement lies in the character of th…