ELZIE SMITH
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 larceny conviction due to insufficient evidence, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the hog's head found in the defendant's possession belonged to the stolen hog, especially given uncontradicted testimony of a legitimate purchase.
No, the evidence of the hog's identity was legally insufficient to support the guilty verdict.
“The evidence of identity of the hog, the head of which was found in the possession of the accused, is uncertain and unsatisfactory and, we think, legally insufficient to support a verdict of guilty.”
Establishes the primary reason for reversing the conviction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe accused was found in possession of a hog's head. The prosecution presented this as evidence of larceny. However, the defense presented uncontradic…
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 Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
We review on writ of error judgment of conviction of larceny of a hog.
The evidence of identity of the hog, the head of which was found in the possession of the accused, is uncertain and unsatisfactory and, we think, legally insufficient to support a verdict of guilty.
Especially is this true when we find in the record convincing and uncontradicted evidence produced from several disinterested and unimpeached witnesses that the head found in the possession of the accused was the head of an entirely different hog which accused had purchased from the true owner thereof in the regular course of business.
Justice demands that the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
So ordered.
Terrell', C. J., and Whitfield, Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Thomas, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morgan v. State, 186 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…on of the accused, is not connected by competent evidence to the identity of the stolen automobile or that defendant was in possession of a stolen car, and, we think, legally insufficient to support a judgment and sentence. See Smith v. State, 1939, 139 Fla. 558, 190 So. 696. For these reasons, the judgment and con'-viction of the defendant, Willie James Morgan, for larceny of automobile is reversed and the defendant discharged from-this cause. It is so ordered.…
-
Pella v. State, 183 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…le in the circumstances. See Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 So. 555, 557. The decisions relied on by appellant in disputing the sufficiency of the identification of the electric razor (Heath v. State, 97 Fla. 330, 120 So. 846, and Smith v. State, 139 Fla. 558, 190 So. 696) are not applicable to the facts of this case. In the Heath case which involved larceny of a heifer the Supreme Court reversed a conviction holding identification of the animal was insufficient, where “[o]ne set of witnesses testified p…
-
Carson v. State, 205 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…e. The victim of the theft identified a motorcycle in Opa Locka as the one that was stolen from him, but the State completely failed to show that the motorcycle identified at Opa Locka was the one found in appellant’s possession. See Smith v. State, 139 Fla. 558, 190 So. 696 (1939); Morgan v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 795. It being apparent that the State has failed to prove a prima facie case, the Court erred in failing to direct a verdict for the defendant. The judgment is therefore reversed. Reve…