HUB POWELL
v.
STATE

Fla. | 1938-06-08
Wi-iitfifxd, Terrell, Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
132 Fla. 659 Florida Supreme Court (1938) Caution
Also reported at: 181 So. 901
Cited by 14 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court reversed a larceny conviction because the State failed to prove the crime occurred in Holmes County, Florida, as required for venue.


Holding

No, the State failed to prove that the larceny occurred in Holmes County, Florida.


Key Quotes

“Proof of venue is essential and cannot be left to guess work on the part of the jury.”

Establishes the legal principle that venue must be proven.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of larceny of a bull. The victim, who lived in Holmes County, Florida, discovered the bull missing and later found it in H…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Buford, J.

Buford, J.

Plaintiff in error, being convicted of the statutory offense of the larceny of “one bull, the property of D. C. Arrant,” sued out writ of error.

The transcript of the record shows that the State failed to prove that the offense, if committed at all, was committed in Holmes County, Florida.

Proof of venue is essential and cannot be left to guess work on the part of the jury. The only evidence on this point is:

“My name is D. C. Arrant and I live in Holmes County in the northeast corner, I think, beat 2 or 4, just over the line. I know Hub Powell and he lives in the same community where I live, about a,quarter of a mile from me. I owned a certain- bull yearling on about the 14th day of July and I missed him. Afterwards I found him in Hartford, Alabama. 'He used about two miles from my place. I had missed him about two months before I found him.”

So there is no evidence even that the bull “used” in Holmes County, Florida, and certainly not a vestige of evidence that it was stolen, if it was stolen, in that county.

Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

So ordered.

Reversed.

Wi-iitfifxd, Terrell, Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • McCLELLION v. State, 858 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
    …proof showed they occurred solely in Palm Beach County, and reversed for a judgment of acquittal. In at least three cases, however, our supreme court has held that the remedy for failure to prove venue is a reversal for a new trial. Powell v. State, 132 Fla. 659, 181 So. 901 (1938); McKinnie v, State, 44 Fla. 143, 32 So. 786 (1902); Warrace v. State, 27 Fla. 362, 8 So. 748 (1891). Longo is not binding precedent in light of these decisions. Appellant apparently recognizes that the proper remedy is a new tri…
  • Navarre v. State, 608 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
    …. 2d 956, 960 (Fla.1981); Murphy v. State, 407 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Dydek v. State, 400 So. 2d 1255, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Accordingly, we reverse the battery conviction. See State v. Black, 385 So. 2d 1372 (Fla.1980); Powell v. State, 132 Fla. 659, 181 So. 901 (1938); McKinnie v. State, 44 Fla. 143, 32 So. 786 (1902); Hoxie v. State, 483 So. 2d 748 (Fla.5th DCA 1986). Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.150(a) deals with joinder of offenses and provides that “[t]wo or more offenses which are triable in the same…
  • Pennick v. State, 453 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
    …lice Jones’ house, and not very far from the home of the deceased,” insufficient to prove venue), or where the locality referred to, even if known by or probably familiar to the jury, does not relate to the place of the offense, see Powell v. State, 132 Fla. 659, 181 So. 901 (1938) (testimony that defendant and owner of stolen bull both lived in Holmes County insufficient to prove that larceny of bull occurred in such county); Smith v. State, 27 So. 868 (testimony that murder victim was brought from unident…

Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw