HENRY ALLEN
v.
STATE
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 breaking and entering, finding insufficient evidence that the defendant was present at the scene of the crime, even though he may have planned it.
No, the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for breaking and entering as a principal because the defendant was not present at the scene of the crime.
“There is no evidence in the record to sustain a conviction of the offense charged as the evidence shows conclusively that the plaintiff in error here, defendant in the court below, was not either actually or constructively present at the place where and the time when the crime was committed.”
Establishes the primary reason for reversal: lack of evidence of presence at the crime scene.
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 convicted of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit grand larceny. The evidence presented at trial suggested the def…
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
The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Pinellas' County, Florida, under an indictment charging him together with other persons therein named with the offense of breaking and entering the building of another with intent to commit grand larceny.
There is no evidence in the record to sustain a conviction of the offense charged as the evidence shows conclusively that the plaintiff in error here, defendant in the court below, was not either actually or constructively present at the place where and the time when the crime was committed. There is evidence in the record which tends to prove that this plaintiff in error planned the perpetration of the act and probably furnished part of the instrumentalities with which the crime was committed. If he did all the evidence indicated he did he would have been guilty as an accessory before the fact and not as' a principal.
The judgment must be reversed. It is so ordered.
Reversed.
*164Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alton LOY v. State, 87 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1956)…PER CURIAM. Reversed under the authority of Aldridge v. State, Fla.1953, 63 So. 2d 194; Allen v. State, 1934, 117 Fla. 163, 157 So. 341 and Neumann v. State, 116 Fla. 98, 156 So. 237. DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.…