RICHARD RUSSELL TODD, 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.
Richard Todd appealed his convictions for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny, arguing insufficient evidence. The Florida District Court of Appeal agreed that the state failed to prove the stolen property's market value at the time of the theft met the $100 threshold required for grand larceny, and reversed, remanding for conviction on the lesser included offenses.
The evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions for grand larceny and breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny because the state failed to establish the market value of the stolen property at the time of the theft was $100 or more. The case was reversed and remanded for conviction on the lesser included offenses of breaking and entering with intent to commit petty larceny and petty larceny.
“A necessary element of proof to establish guilt of the charge of grand larceny was the taking of property of a value of $100 or more at the time of the theft.”
Establishes the essential statutory requirement for grand larceny that the state failed to prove
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTodd was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. He pleaded not guilty, was tried by the …
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 Petit Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was charged in a two count information with breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny, and with grand larceny. He pleaded not guilty, was tried by the court without a jury and found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to ten years in the state penitentiary on both offenses.
On this appeal it is contended on behalf of the defendant below that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment. A necessary element of proof to establish guilt of the charge of grand larceny was the taking of property of a value of $100 or more at the time of the theft. Lambert v. State, Fla.App.1959, 111 So. 2d 68, 69. We agree with the contention of the appellant that the state did not fulfill that requirement of proof. The property taken was a radio and a television set. As to the latter, the state presented evidence that it had cost $135 when acquired two years earlier. No evidence was submitted as to the value of the radio. Evidence as to cost of the alleged stolen property did not establish its market value at the time of the theft. Lambert v. State, supra; Escobar v. State, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 193.
The appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction on the other charge also has merit. The defendant was not apprehended while in the dwelling, and the fact that he left the premises after having taken property which was not shown to have a value of $100 or more, is reason to infer that the breaking and entering was with intent to take that which was taken, rather than that the entry was with intent to take property of the value of $100 or more. Moreover, the latter assumption would be out of place here because the evidence did not show the personal property on the premises, or its value.
' For the reasons stated the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with *910directions to the trial court to enter judgment holding the defendant guilty of the lesser included offenses (breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to-wit: petty larceny, and petty larceny), and to impose sentences therefor as provided by law.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lambert v. State, 111 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Escobar v. State, 181 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)