J. G. FLYNN, 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 larceny, holding that an accessory cannot be convicted if the principal has not been convicted, especially when indicted at common law.
No, an accessory cannot be convicted if the principal has not been convicted, especially when the indictment charges the accessory as at common law.
“As the alleged accessories were indicted with the principal as at common law and were not charged with a substantive offense as is permitted by the statute, and as there is no showing whatever that the person who was indicted as principal has been convicted, the judgment of conviction of the accessory is erroneous and is hereby reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for reversing the conviction.
J. G. Flynn was indicted with others for larceny of an automobile. Flynn was charged as an accessory in the second count and for receiving stolen prop…
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 Receiving Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This cause having been duly considered and it appearing that the plaintiff in error was indicted with J. M. Lee and T. Hart Getzen in one count for the larceny of an automobile, the property of D. U. MeGinnes. In a second count J. M. Lee was indicted as principal and T. Hart Getzen and J. G. Flynn as accessories in the same larceny. And in the third county the three were charged with receiving the stolen property. The plaintiff in error Flynn having been tried alone was found guilty and sentenced under the second count of the indictment. As the alleged accessories were indicted with the principal as at common law and were not charged with a substantive offense as is permitted by the statute, and as there is no showing whatever that the person who was indicted as principal has been convicted, the judgment of conviction of the accessory is erroneous and is hereby reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Potts v. State, 430 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 1982)…ween the principal in the second degree and the accessory before the fact. Montague v. State, 17 Fla. 662 (1880). Another distinction began to develop as to whether or not the accessory was charged under the statute or at common law. Flynn v. State, 86 Fla. 467, 98 So. 76 (1923). And though the courts were willing to place the principal in the first degree and the principal in the second degree in the same shoes, the accessory before the fact was treated quite differently. Neumann v. State, 116 Fla. 98, 15…
-
Whiting v. State, 97 Fla. 693 (Fla. 1929)…im. Prac., 39, p. 1227; 1 R. C. L. p. 145, Sec. 22; 14 Ann. Cas., 311 note. The succeeding sections, 7111 Comp. Gen. Laws (5009 Rev. Gen. Stats.) shows this. See also Ex parte Bowen 25 Fla. 214, 220, and Bowen v. State, 25 Fla., 645; Flynn v. State, 86 Fla. 467. [*699] The definitions and distinctions at common law are tersely stated in the Albritton v. State, 32 Fla. 358, 13 So. R. 955; “An accessory before the fact is one who, though absent at the time of the commission of a felony, doth yet procure, cou…
-
Hysler v. State, 136 Fla. 563 (Fla. 1939)…ce or not. Lake v. State, 100 Fla. 367, 129 So. 834; McCall v. State, 120 Fla. 707, 163 So. 38; In re Vann, opinion filed January 14, 1939. I have examined the cases relied on by petitioner, Kelley v. State, 79 Fla. 182, 83 So. 909; Flynn v. State, 86 Fla. 467, 98 So. 76; State, ex rel. Mauldin, v. Hardie, 114 Fla. 374, 154 So. 183. These cases hold that conviction and punishment of the principal must be done at the same time or must precede the conviction and punishment of the accessory. This doctrine is…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence