D. H. HICKS
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.
D. H. Hicks was convicted of grand larceny for stealing a brood sow and sentenced to two years hard labor. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence—an affidavit showing the stolen property's actual value was $25, contradicting trial testimony that it exceeded $50.
A new trial must be granted where newly discovered evidence materially contradicts key trial testimony and the ends of justice require it. The evidence on the property's value at trial was unsatisfactory, and the defendant was entitled to present the affidavit showing actual value of only $25.
“This and other courts have approved the rule granting a new trial on newly discovered evidence when circumstances warrant and the ends of justice require.”
Establishes the legal standard for granting new trials based on newly discovered evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHicks was indicted and tried for grand larceny. The allegedly stolen property was a brood sow. At trial, the prosecuting witness testified the sow was…
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 Value Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error was indicted, tried, and convicted for grand -larceny and sentenced to serve two years in the state penitentiary at hard labor. He seeks to be relieved of that judgment on the basis of newly discovered evidence.
The newly discovered evidence was an affidavit made in a Justice of the Peace Court as a predicate for a search warrant to search the premises of the plaintiff in error for the alleged stolen property. It was not discovered until after the trial and judgment, of ■ guilty was rendered. It alleged the true value of the stolen property to be $25.00, while at the trial of defendant the affiant who was the prosecuting witness testified that it was of a value of more than fifty dollars.
This and other courts have approved the rule granting a new trial on newly discovered evidence when circumstances warrant and the ends of justice require. Tyson v. State, 87 Fla. 392, 100 So. 254; Adams v. State, 55 Fla. 1, 46 So. 152; Barker v. French, 18 Vt. 460.
The property alleged to have been stolen was a brood sow. The evidence as to her value was unsatisfactory. It should have been confined to her value at the time she was alleged to have been stolen and should have been .based on market value unless shown to have had an intrinsic or peculiar value for stock purposes. It was permissible to prove her value for stock purposes but the statement of the prosecuting witness that he would not take fifty or seventy-five dollars for her does not prove such value. We think the defendant was entitled to have' the affidavit in evidence.
*671The evidence on which the verdict was rendered being unsatisfactory as to these points, we think the ends of justice require a new trial.
Reversed for a new trial.
Ellis, C. J., and Buford, J. J., concur. •
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Davis, J. j., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ozzie Joseph Negron and Teresa Negron v. State, 306 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1974)…t in ascertaining value in such cases. 13 Fla.Jur. Evidence § 172. The law in Florida is well settled that testimony as to the cost of stolen property is insufficient in itself to establish the value of the time of the theft. Hicks v. State (1937), 127 Fla. 669, 173 So. 815. In that case Mr. Justice Terrell said that the evidence as to the value of the allegedly stolen brood sow should have been confined to her value at the time she was alleged to have been stolen and should have been based on market value…
-
Baker v. State, 336 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1976)…e will not overthrow unless some abuse is shown.” State v. Sears, 148 Fla. 89, 3 So. 2d 721, 722 (1941). State v. Strickland, 172 So. 2d 260 (Fla.App.2d 1965). Only very rarely should the trial court’s determination be disturbed, see Hicks v. State, 127 Fla. 669, 173 So. 815 (1937); Solis v. State, 262 So. 2d 9 (Fla.App.2d 1972) cert. den., 265 So. 2d 372 (Fla.1972); Douth v. State, supra, and especially is this so if the trial court grants a new trial in a criminal case on the basis of newly discovered evi…
-
Lambert v. State, 111 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…vidently for income tax or bookkkeeping purposes, is immaterial and irrelevant. The [*70] criterion in prosecutions for larceny is the market value of the property at the time of the theft. Johnson v. State, Fla.App., 102 So. 2d 412; Hicks v. State, 127 Fla. 669, 173 So. 815. It was the burden of the State to establish such value to be $50 or more, and that burden was not met. In order to permit correction of the information by adding the suffix “Jr.” after the name J. W. Frye (owner of the property) the c…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tyson v. State, 87 Fla. 392 (Fla. 1924)
- January Adams v. State, 55 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1908)