W. R. FINDLEY, ALIAS BUCK, ALIAS BILL FINDLEY,
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 with intent to commit grand larceny, holding that the state failed to prove the defendant's specific intent to commit larceny when entering the building, even though evidence showed he did break and enter it.
The judgment of conviction must be reversed because the state failed to prove the defendant's specific intent to commit grand larceny when breaking and entering the building. While evidence established the break and entry itself, the state did not meet its burden of proving the specific intent element required for the charged offense.
“the defendant is not charged merely with breaking and entering the building of another. He is charged with the offense of breaking and entering that building with the specific intent to then and there commit grand larceny.”
Establishes the distinction between the lesser offense proven and the specific offense charged, which requires proof of intent to commit larceny.
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, W. R. Findley, and another person broke and entered a storehouse belonging to Whiddon Cash Stores at 1268 McDuff Avenue in Jacksonville…
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
On writ of error we review judgment of *342conviction of the offense of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony, to-wit, Grand Larceny, under an information which charges that the defendant “did feloniously break and enter a certain building, to-wit the storehouse of Whiddon Cash Stores, a Corporation, then and there situate, the said storehouse being located at 1268 McDuff avenue in the City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, with intent then and there to take, steal and carry away the money, property, goods and chattels of another of the value of fifty dollars.”
It could serve no useful purpose for us to discuss the sev-. eral contentions made by the plaintiff in error. It is sufficient to say that the evidence is sufficient to show that the defendant and another broke and entered the building described, but the defendant is not charged merely with breaking and entering the building of another. He is charged with the offense of breaking and entering that building with the specific intent to then and there commit grand larceny. In such cases the burden is on the State to prove the intent with which the accused has broken and entered a building and in this case the State entirely failed to prove with what intent the accused and his accomplice broke and entered the building.
Therefore, the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and judgment. See McNair v. State, 61 Fla. 35, 55 Sou. 401; Simpson v. State, 81 Fla. 292, 87 Sou. 920.
Therefore, the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded and it is so ordered.
Ellis, C. J:, and Terrell and Davis, J. J., concur.
• Whitfield and Brown, J. J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vazquez v. State, 350 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…nvited or otherwise has a legal right to be on the premises at the time of the alleged entering or remaining, or (3) the defendant had no intent at the time of the entering or remaining to commit an offense [*1097] on the premises. Findley v. State, 128 Fla. 341, 174 So. 724 (1937); Simpson v. State, 81 Fla. 292, 87 So. 920 (1921); Balletti v. State, 261 So. 2d 510 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). In the instant ease, the wife had a posses-sory right in the apartment which the defendant entered without the wife’s consen…
Authorities Cited
- Simpson v. State, 81 Fla. 292 (Fla. 1921)
- McNair v. State, 61 Fla. 35 (Fla. 1911)