JAMES H. CROFT
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 affirmed a conviction for larceny of a cow, holding that the State sufficiently proved venue and presented adequate evidence to support the conviction.
Yes, venue must be proven in a larceny prosecution for a valid conviction. Yes, the evidence in this case was sufficient to justify the conviction.
“In' a larceny prosecution is it esential to a valid conviction that the State prove venue?”
This quote states the first legal question presented by the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 5 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of larceny of a cow. He appealed the conviction, raising two questions regarding the necessity of proving venue a…
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 Venue In Criminal Cases cases and more on FLexlaw
To judgment of conviction of the offense of larceny of a cow plaintiff in error sued out writ of error.
He presents two questions for our consideration, stated as follows:
“Question No. One: In' a larceny prosecution is it esential to a valid conviction that the State prove venue?”
“Question No. Two: Is the evidence in the case at bar sufficient to justify conviction for larceny of a cow?”
Both questions must be answered in the affirmative.
Inspection of the record discloses that the'State met the burden suggested by each question.
No reversible error being made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCLELLION v. State, 858 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…n to the exception contained in the constitution, numerous other exceptions are spelled out in Chapter 910, Florida Statutes, but none of them are applicable in this case. In order to obtain a conviction, the state must prove venue. Croft v. State, 139 Fla. 711, 191 So. 34 (1939); Pennick v. State, 453 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Venue is not an element of the charged crime, however, and need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if the jury can reasonably infer from the evidence tha…
-
Debose v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)