N. S. CRAWFORD, 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 reversed a conviction for embezzlement due to insufficient evidence regarding the value of the stolen hog and the fraudulent conversion. The court emphasized that a conviction requires proof of all material elements of the crime.
No, the evidence was insufficient to support the guilty verdict because there was a lack of conclusive proof regarding the value of the hog and the fraudulent conversion of the property.
“One question only is presented, namely, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.”
Identifies the sole issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was indicted for embezzling a hog valued at $50. A trial resulted in a guilty verdict, and the defendant was adjudged guilty. The defend…
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 Proof Of Value cases and more on FLexlaw
[*499] West, J.
Upon an indictment for embezzlement-of one hog' of the value of Fifty Dollars ($50) there was a trial resulting in a verdict of guilty as charged. The accused thereupon was adjudged guilty by the court. To review this judgment writ of error was taken from this court.
One question only is presented, namely, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. This question was presented by motion for new trial, which was denied, and this ruling is assigned as error. The contention is that the value of the hog was not proved. In the absence of proof of material elements of the crime charged, a judgment of conviction should be reversed. Carnley v. State, 82 Fla. 282, 89 South. Rep. 808; Rast v. State, 79 Fla. 772, 84 South. Rep. 683; 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. Because of the inconclusive nature of the proof, both as to value and fraudulent conversion of the property alleged to have been taken, the judgment in this case will be reversed for a new trial.
Reversed.
Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and Terrell, JJ., concur. , '
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stephens v. State, 140 Fla. 163 (Fla. 1939)…t appears that the ends of justice will be best subserved by a new trial, the judgment will .be reversed and a new trial awarded. Knowles v. State, 86 Fla. 270, 97 So. 716.” [*166] See also Moody v. State, 76 Fla. 23, 79 Sou. 294; Crawford v. State, 85 Fla. 498, 96 Sou 837; Pollard v. State, 61 Fla. 44, 55 Sou. 380, and Howell v. State, 102 Fla. 612, 139 Sou. 187. Because of the inconclusive character and weight of the evidence, we hold that the ends of justice demand a reversal of the judgment and .reman…
Authorities Cited
- Franklin v. State, 66 Fla. 213 (Fla. 1913)
- Synes v. State, 78 Fla. 167 (Fla. 1919)
- Dade Carnley v. State, 82 Fla. 282 (Fla. 1921)
- Rast v. State, 79 Fla. 772 (Fla. 1920)
- Cloud v. State, 64 Fla. 237 (Fla. 1912)