LEROY VAUGHN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Leroy Vaughn was convicted of receiving stolen cigarettes valued at $20 and sentenced to 18 months in prison. The Florida Supreme Court reversed because the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury to fix the value of stolen property, which would have allowed Vaughn to invoke a statutory right to reduce his sentence through restitution.
The trial court erred in refusing to require the jury to fix the value of the stolen property because, under Section 7240 C.G.L. 1927, a first offender convicted of receiving stolen property has the right to make restitution and thereby reduce his offense from a felony to a misdemeanor. The court did not err in refusing to charge regarding accomplice testimony because the charge against Vaughn was separate and distinct from any crime of the accomplices.
“Upon a first conviction under the preceding section, and when the act of stealing the property is not by law a felony, if the party convicted of buying, receiving or aiding in the concealing of such stolen property, makes satisfaction to the party injured to the full value of the property stolen and not restored, he shall not be imprisoned in the State prison, but may be liable to such additional punishment as the court may direct.”
The statutory provision that gives first offenders the right to reduce their offense through restitution, establishing why the jury instruction on property value was necessary.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVaughn was charged with receiving stolen property—cigarettes valued at $20. He was convicted and sentenced to the State prison for eighteen months. Th…
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 Receiving Stolen Property cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant was charged with receiving stolen property, to-wit: cigarettes of the value of $20.00. He was convicted and sentenced to the State prison for a period of eighteen months. •
On appeal the defendant asserts error for refusal to grant his requested charge to the jury to fix the value of the goods stolen in event of his guilt. The *13purpose of this request was to make available to defendant the benefit of Section 7240, C. G. L., 1927:
“Upon a first conviction under the preceding section, and when the act of stealing the property is not by law a felony, if the party convicted of buying, receiving or aiding in the concealing of such stolen property, makes satisfaction to the party injured to the full value of the property stolen and not restored, he shall not be imprisoned in the State prison, but may be liable to such additional punishment as the court may direct.”
This question has never been decided by this Court. It was discussed in an opinion by this Court in Alvarez v. The State of Florida, 75 Fla. 286, 78 So. 272; and also in a concurring opinion by Mr. Justice Buford in Fisher v. State, decided at this term. We now approve the comment made therein, and hold that it was the duty of the trial court to require the jury to fix the value of the property stolen in the event of conviction.
The statute is clear, that, if the larceny be a misdemeanor, a first offender has the right after conviction to make restitution and thereby reduce his offense from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Error is asserted for refusal to charge that the testimony of an accomplice should be received with great caution. With this we do not agree. The theory of the State’s case was that one Hodges was the thief. One Fisher delivered the stolen goods to the defendant. Both Hodges and Fisher were State witnesses. The law is settled that an accomplice’s testimony is to be received with great caution. Henderson v. State, 135 Fla. 548, 185. So. 625. The charge •against defendant was a separate and distinct crime *14and had no necessary relation to the crime, if any, of Hodges and Fisher. This question was settled adversely to defendant in Bailey v. State of Florida, 76 Fla. 103, 79 So. 748.
■' Other assignments of error have been examined and found without merit. The judgment is reversed for another trial not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield and Buford, J. J., concur..
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Padgett v. State, 53 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1951)…oved by this Court; see Henderson v. State, 135 Fla. 548, 185 So. 625, 628, 120 A.L.R. 742; and the even stronger charge "and receive same with great caution" has been required in Varnum v. State, 137 Fla. 438, 188 So. 346, 351; and Vaughn v. State, 147 Fla. 12, 2 So. 2d 122. We believe the duty to receive such evidence with caution devolves upon the jury as well as upon the presiding judge. We are further of the opinion that the trial court erred in refusing to give the charge in the language requested,…
-
Tidwell v. THE Cir. Court OF Desoto Cnty., 151 Fla. 333 (Fla. 1942)…ough prematurely, may insist upon the lesser punishment’if eventually convicted but cannot by that premature action disturb the jurisdiction of the court. Anything said by this Court in Alvarez v. State, 75 Fla. 286, 78 So. 272, and Vaughn v. State, 147 Fla. 12, 2 So. (2nd) 122, in conflict with the view expressed here is overruled. The petition is denied. BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, BUFORD, and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur. ADAMS, J., agrees to conclusion.…
-
Spurlock v. State, 281 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…e jury verdict failed to fix the value of the stolen goods and to allege defendant knew the goods were stolen. The verdict was defective because it failed to set value. Alvarez v. State, Fla.1918, 75 Fla. 286, 78 So. 272; Vaughn v. State, Fla.1941, 147 Fla. 12, 2 So. 2d 122; both cases overruled on other grounds in Tidwell v. State, Fla.1942, 151 Fla. 333, 9 So. 2d 630. As defendant concedes he failed to object below to the verdict, he failed to move for a new trial, and never attacked the verdict by a pr…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Henderson v. State, 135 Fla. 548 (Fla. 1938)
- Bailey v. State, 76 Fla. 103 (Fla. 1918)
- Alvarez v. State, 75 Fla. 286 (Fla. 1918)