TOMMY HARLEY, WILLIE JAMES KING, AND WILLIE MARSHALL ELLIOTT, APPELLANTS,
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 court held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of grand larceny, and the proof of the value of the stolen money was adequate.
Four defendants were convicted of grand larceny after distracting a store owner and customers while one defendant stole money from the cash register. …
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 Proof Of Value Of Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants appeal and seek reversal of a judgment of conviction and sentence based upon a jury verdict finding them guilty of the crime of grand larceny.
By their first point appellants challenge the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence on which appellee relies to support the verdict and judgment. We have carefully reviewed the transcript of the trial proceedings and find the totality of the evidence, especially that establishing the similar tactic employed by three of the four defendants in distracting the owner and customers in the store at a time when the fourth defendant was standing adjacent to the open cash register from which the money was stolen, their flight from the store after discovery of the theft and refusal to stop at the command of the victim, is sufficient to foreclose all reasonable inferences of innocence.1 Appellants’ remaining points which contend that the proof is not sufficient to establish the value of the money taken are without merit in view of the victim’s positive testimony as to the amount of cash which was in his cash register immediately before appellants arrived at his store and immediately after their departure. Appellants’ contention that the trial court erred in failing to grant their motion to suppress the in-custody identification made of them by appellee’s witnesses is not supported by established principles of law and, therefore, can avail them nothing.2
The judgments appealed are affirmed.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., RAWLS, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powell v. State, 335 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…Sup.Ct. Fla.1927, 92 Fla. 1038, 111 So. 285, reversed, saying: “There is no evidence that this Defendant had any control, ownership, or interest in the whiskey. Neither is there any evidence that the same was ever in his constructive possession.” (248 So. 2d 492) Sub judice, the State relies upon an opinion of our sister court of the Second District, Maloney v. State, Fla.App.2d 1962, 146 So. 2d 581, in which the court affirmed a conviction of an appellant accused under the same statute. We have carefully…
Authorities Cited
- Russell v. United States, 408 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1969)
- Dudley George Hanemann v. State, 228 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1969)
- In re Florida BAR, 108 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1959)
- Resolute Ins. Co. v. Haydon Burns, 186 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)