FRANK W. ROSS, APPELLANT,
v.
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 conviction for grand larceny is affirmed because there was substantial and competent evidence to support it, and the element of ownership was sufficiently demonstrated.
Appellant was convicted of grand larceny for stealing silver dollars, a watch, and other jewelry. The appellant questioned the sufficiency of the evid…
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 Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was informed against and convicted of the crime of grand larceny. The appellant’s first point on appeal is directed to whether or not his conviction for grand larceny was supported by substantial and competent evidence.
The appellant was charged with the theft of one hundred and forty-six silver dollars, a valuable watch, and other coins and jewelry of value exceeding one hundred dollars. Evidence in the form of witnesses’ testimony was presented to the trial judge, who, sitting in his capacity as trier of fact, certainly had before him sufficient and competent evidence to support a conviction under the grand larceny statute. § 811.021 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Crum v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 24.
The appellant has also questioned his conviction on the grounds that the element of ownership of the stolen goods was not definitely demonstrated by the state. In Wilcox v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 555, the court stated:
“The general rule is that where personal property is taken feloniously from any bailee the ownership may be laid in the information either in the possessor or the real owner at the election of the pleader. [Citing cases.] The purpose for an allegation and proof of ownership is to show that the property belongs to one other than the accused.”
The description of the stolen property contained in the information, along with the names and owners thereof, are stated primarily as a matter of description and identification. Hearn v. State, Fla.1951, 55 *465So.2d 559, 28 A.L.R.2d 1179. All that was necessary to show that the felony of grand larceny had been committed by the defendant with regard to the stolen property was to demonstrate that a superior possessory interest to that of the defendant existed in another person. The record on appeal contains sufficient and competent evidence upon which the judge, as trier of fact, could make such a finding. Matera v. State, Fla. App.1969, 218 So.2d 180.
For the above reasons, the conviction being appealed is hereby affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. T.A., 528 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…primarily as a means of describing or identifying the property and to show ownership in a person or persons other than the accused. See Gaynor v. State, 196 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 201 So. 2d 894 (Fla.1967). See also, Ross v. State, 226 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Thus, if the original petitions in this case had, in addition to naming the victims, set forth property descriptions sufficient to allow proof at trial that the same property was the subject of the amended charges, the changing o…
-
Percival M. Marshall v. Dugger, 526 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…f taking is unnecessary, as the purpose of the allegation of ownership is to show that the property taken belonged to another. See McNeal v. State, 303 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Matera v. State, 218 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Ross v. State, 226 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). [*146] Ownership of the property may be laid in the information either in the real owner or the custodian thereof. See Wilcox v. State, 18B So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Thus, amendment of the information would at most constitut…
-
Gaumond v. State, 246 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…nd the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed. See Hearn v. State, Fla.1951, 55 So. 2d 559; Cross v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 324; Ross v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 464; and Gaynor v. State, Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 19. See also State v. Owens, Fla.1970, 233 So. 2d 389, and State v. Wright, Fla.1969, 224 So. 2d 300. CROSS, C. J., and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Hearn v. State, 55 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1951)
- Matera v. State, 218 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Isiah Wilcox and Frank Hanks v. State, 183 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)