LARRY EUGENE HUNTER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Larry Eugene Hunter appeals his conviction for breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's handling of a variance in the property address or in its treatment of Hunter's insanity defense.
The court held that the variance in the address was not material and did not prejudice the defendant because he was not denied knowledge of the location and did not present a defense that would have made the address discrepancy material. The court also held that the evidence presented on Hunter's behalf regarding insanity was insufficient to raise a reasonable doubt and shift the burden to the state.
[1] A variance between the street name (Terrace vs. …
[2] A defendant is not prejudiced by a variance in an information if the defendant had knowledge of the inaccuracy before trial.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When a defendant in a criminal case in this state relies on the defense of insanity, the issue is limited to whether or not the defendant has the ability to distinguish right from wrong and to know that the act he is charged with committing was wrong.”
Establishes the M'Naghten Rule as the applicable legal standard for insanity in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHunter was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. The information listed the property ad…
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 Materiality Of Variance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant below appeals his conviction of the offenses of breaking and enter ing a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny, and grand larceny. We find no reversible error has been shown, and affirm.
The trial court correctly held the variance caused by reference in the information to the street address as being a Terrace, instead of a Street, was not material. The defendant was not prejudiced thereby. The information listed the residents of the dwelling whose property was allegedly taken, and the record reveals the attorney for the defendant had knowledge of the inaccuracy before trial. Moreover, the defendant presented no type or form of defense with reference to which a discrepancy in the address of the alleged location of the larceny would be material. For example, the defendant did not rely upon an alibi, and based his defense on a claim of insanity. Venue in the case was proved. See Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. 360, 363; Howlett v. State, Fla.App.1972, 260 So. 2d 878, 880.
The appellant contends the evidence presented on his behalf relating to insanity was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, so as to shift the burden to the state to overcome such doubt (Cook v. State, Fla.App.1973, 271 So. 2d 232, 233), and argues that the state failed in that respect.
In Young v. State, Fla.1962, 140 So. 2d 97, 100, the Supreme Court said:
“ * * * When a defendant in a criminal case in this state relies on the defense of insanity, the issue is limited to whether or not the defendant has the ability to distinguish right from wrong and to know that the act he is charged with committing was wrong. The test does not depend on the intelligence, education or general mental capacity of the accused.”
Insanity involved in such a case, is as defined under the M’Naghten Rule. Davis v. State, 44 Fla. 32, 32 So. 822; Anderson v. State, Fla.1973, 276 So. 2d 17. The state contends, and we agree, that on this record the evidence in that posture was not sufficient to shift the burden to the state. The issue was properly triable on the evidence presented.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R. A. v. State, 400 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…hout material variance. Without dispute, the de minimus discrepancy in the proofs at trial wherein “N.W.” was omitted from the address of the burglarized building in no way prejudiced the appellant in the preparation of his defense. Hunter v. State, 292 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Finally, appellant argues that there was insufficient proof that he intended to commit theft within the structure. We disagree. Since intent may be shown by circumstantial evidence, Rebjebian v. State, 44 So. 2d 81 (Fla.1949);…
-
Cecilio Muniz v. State, 13 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Hunter v. State, 292 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).…
Authorities Cited
- Cannon v. State, 107 So. 360 (Fla. 1926)
- Davis v. State, 44 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1902)
- Young v. State, 140 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1962)
- Earnest Eugene Anderson v. State, 276 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1973)
- LEE v. State, 260 So. 2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Cook v. State, 271 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)