BARRY BERZIN, 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.
The appellate court reversed a conviction for grand larceny, holding that the evidence presented did not establish the necessary element of felonious intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, the evidence failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was a felonious intent to commit larceny on the date in question, which is a necessary ingredient for the crime.
“The evidence fails to establish, beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, that there was a felonious intent to commit larceny on October 29, 1966.”
Establishes the core reason for the reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of grand larceny for an alleged offense on October 29, 1966. Adjudication and sentence were withheld. The appellate court …
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 Felonious Intent cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant in this case seeks review of a conviction for the crime of alleged *898grand larceny committed on October 29, 1966. Adjudication and sentence was withheld, pursuant to the authority of § 948.01 (3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. We reverse.
The evidence fails to establish, beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, that there was a felonious intent to commit larceny on October 29, 1966. This being a necessary ingredient to establish the crime of grand larceny and this record lacking such, we reverse upon the following authorities: Tedder v. State, 73 Fla. 861, 75 So. 783; Helton v. State, 135 Fla. 458, 185 So. 864; Maddox v. State, Fla. 1948, 38 So.2d 58; Ricard v. State, Fla. App.1966, 181 So.2d 677; Reid v. Florida Real Estate Commission, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 846.
Therefore, the conviction here under review is hereby set aside with directions that the appellant be discharged from the cause.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Reid v. The Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & George J. Saunders, 188 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Ricard v. State, 181 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Maddox v. State, 38 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1948)
- Helton v. State, 135 Fla. 458 (Fla. 1938)
- Tedder v. State, 73 Fla. 861 (Fla. 1917)