RENE DIAZ ESCOBAR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Rene Diaz Escobar was convicted of grand larceny in two separate cases involving personal property and funds from a joint bank account. The court affirmed the conviction for larceny of personal property but reduced it to petty larceny due to insufficient proof of market value, and reversed the conviction for larceny of joint bank account funds because a co-owner cannot be guilty of larceny of jointly-owned property.
The court affirmed the conviction for larceny of personal property but reversed the grand larceny finding and reduced it to petty larceny because the market value of the property was not proven. The court reversed the conviction for larceny of joint bank account funds, holding that a co-owner of jointly-owned property cannot be guilty of larceny thereof absent a special property interest superior to that of the co-owner.
“It is only under very exceptional circumstances that a person could be guilty of larceny for taking his own property — such as where the owner takes his own goods from one who has a special property right in them and a legal right to withhold them from him.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that a co-owner generally cannot be guilty of larceny of jointly-owned property except in exceptional circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged with grand larceny of personal property (Case No. 63-1751) and grand larceny of funds from a joint bank account (Case No. 63-260…
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 Market Value Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was charged with two in-formations in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida. In Case No. 63-1751 he was informed against on an information charging him with grand larceny of certain personal property and, in Case No. 63-2609, he was informed against in an information which charged him with grand larceny of certain funds contained in a joint bank account. The cases were consolidated for trial and proceeded for final determination non-jury, at the conclusion of which hearing the trial judge found him guilty as charged in both informations and entered sentence thereon.
This appeal ensued contending, first, that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charge of grand larceny of the personal property and, second, even if he was guilty of the felonious taking the State failed to prove the market value of the property and, therefore, the most he could have been convicted of was petty larceny. See: Carnley v. State, 82 Fla. 282, 89 So. 808; Hicks v. State, 127 Fla. 669, 173 So. 815; Bornstein v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 519; Suarez v. State, Fla.App.1962, 136 So.2d 367.
We find ample sufficient evidence in the record to support the taking of the chattels and, therefore, this finding of guilty should be affirmed. See: DiBona v. State, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 192; Hicks v. State, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 101; Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 24. However, we fail to find evidence as to the market value of the chattels as of the taking and, therefore, the record will only support a conviction of petty larceny.
As to the information charging the grand larceny of the joint bank account, the evidence is clear that either party to the account had a right to remove the funds therefrom; that the appellant conceded that others were entitled to certain funds in the account, but a dispute arose as to the amount. The other parties having the beneficial interest refused the amount tendered, *195and the parties became engaged in civil litigation to settle this dispute. The law is quite clear that a co-owner of property cannot be held guilty of larceny of said property. The only exception to this rule is when a second co-owner has a special property interest therein superior to that of the first co-owner. The Florida Supreme Court has so stated the law in Addison v. State, 1928, 95 Fla. 737, 116 So. 629, as follows:
* * * * * *
■“ * * * It is only under very exceptional circumstances that a. person could be guilty of larceny for taking his own property — such as where the owner takes his own goods from one who has a special property right in them and a legal right to withhold them from him. * * * But as a general rule, one could hardly steal his own goods, though he might he guilty of trespass in taking them under certain circumstances. Ordinarily, if he steals at all, it must be the goods of another. * * *
* * * * * *
This is in accordance with the general authorities. See: 2 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure, § 499, p. 173 (Anderson 1957); 2 Burdick Law of Crime, § 517, p. 283; Perkins on Criminal Law 201; Inbau and Soule, Criminal Justice, Cases and Comments (2d ed. 1964).
In the instant case, the defendant was a co-owner of a joint bank account. One of the most common types of joint tenancies in personal property is a joint bank account See: 2 American Law of Property, § 6.4, p. 16 (1952). No one had a special property interest in this account sufficient to defeat the defendant’s possessory interest therein. Consequently, the defendant cannot be held guilty of larceny of said property.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the adjudication of guilty in Case No. 63-2609 be and the same is hereby reversed, and the adjudication of guilty m Case No. 63-1751 is affirmed insofar as it found the appellant guilty of larceny, but so much of it as found him guilty of grand larceny is reversed and the sentence is set aside and the cause remanded for a sentence in accordance with the statutes of this State as made and provided in petty larceny matters.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morena Williams v. State, 187 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…ndicates competent, sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction and, therefore, same should not be disturbed on appeal. See: Crum v. State, Fla. App.1965, 172 So. 2d 24; Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 82; Escobar v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 193. The appellants also contend error in sentencing them on Counts III, IV and V of the Information, on the grounds that said counts are lesser included offenses of Counts I and II. This point appears to be well taken, not because they are separate of…
-
Estuardo Ramon Estrada Escudero v. Hasbun, 689 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…§ 812.014(l)(a)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995). Based upon this definition, Escudero is correct in his contention that a co-owner of property cannot be held criminally liable for the theft of his/her own property. Hinkle, 355 So. 2d at 467; Escobar v. State, 181 So. 2d 193, 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Addison v. State, 95 Fla. 737, 739-40, 116 So. 629, 629 (1928). Escudero, however, is incorrect in his argument that this well-established principle of law has any applicability to the facts of this ease where Hasbun has ave…
-
Hinkle v. State, 355 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…owner. As a general rule, however, one cannot steal his own goods. In particular, a co-owner of a joint bank account cannot be guilty of larceny of funds held in the joint account. Addison v. State, 95 Fla. 737, 116 So. 629 (1928); Escobar v. State, 181 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). See: Perkins on Criminal Law 244 (2d ed. 1969); Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure 499 (Anderson ed. 1957); 2 W. Burdick, Law of Crime 283 (1946); 1 F. Inbau, J. Thompson & C. Soule, Cases and Comments on Criminal Justice 564 (…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Exch. Nat'l Bank of Tampa v. Flynn-Harris-Bullard Co., 95 Fla. 737 (Fla. 1928)
- Guido DI Bona v. State, 121 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Dade Carnley v. State, 82 Fla. 282 (Fla. 1921)
- Hicks v. State, 127 Fla. 669 (Fla. 1937)
- Jordan v. State, 136 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Durrell Hicks v. State, 138 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)