GERALD CARLTON MCNEAL, APPELLANT,
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.
Gerald McNeal appealed his conviction for robbery and three-year prison sentence, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the victim owned the property and that the victim was placed in fear. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the victim's status as manager and custodian was sufficient, and that McNeal, as an aider and abettor to an armed accomplice, was responsible for placing the victim in fear.
The conviction was affirmed. The victim's testimony that he was the manager and custodian of the property was sufficient to establish the ownership/custody element, as actual ownership is unnecessary. Regarding the fear element, McNeal, as an aider and abettor, was responsible for all acts committed by his accomplice who held the gun, and the trier of fact was justified in finding fear present.
[1] A victim's actual ownership of property is not required to prove robbery if the victim is the custodian of the property.
[2] An allegation of ownership in a robbery information serves to identify the stolen property and demonstrate that it belongs to another.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Kunzler's actual ownership of the property is unnecessary; the purpose of an allegation of ownership in the information is to show that the property taken belongs to another, and serves to identify the items when coupled with the description of the property.”
Establishes that actual ownership need not be proven; custodial status satisfies the ownership element of robbery
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 29, 1973, Charles Kunzler, the manager of a Tom Thumb Food Store, was robbed of merchandise on consignment to the store. During the robbery, an…
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 Elements Of Robbery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals his conviction of robbery and sentence to a term of three years in the state penitentiary.
The information charges the defendant with the robbery of Charles Kunzler on May 29, 1973, at the Tom Thumb Food Store where Kunzler is the manager, and states that the defendant did, by force, violence or putting in fear, take the subject property from Kunzler as owner or custodian thereof.
The defendant argues on appeal that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to establish two essential elements of robbery :
1. That the victim owned the property, and
2. That the defendant placed the victim in fear. Although the evidence showed that the stolen property was on consignment to Tom Thumb Stores, Incorporated, Kunzler’s testimony that he was the manager of the store and custodian of the property at the time of the robbery, was sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to determine that he was, in fact, the custodian as alleged in the information. Matera v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 180. Kunzler’s actual ownership of the property is unnecessary; the purpose of an allegation of ownership in the information is to show that the property taken belongs to another, and serves to identify the items when coupled with the description of the property. Ross v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 226 So. 2d 464.
As to the element of fear, the evidence showed that another man held a gun while the defendant took merchandise and ordered Kunzler to put the money into a bag. Although the defendant contends that he did not put the victim in fear because it was not he, but rather his accomplice, who held the gun, we find this to be a tenuous argument. The trier of fact was justified in finding the element of fear present, especially in light of Kunzler’s testimony that “Any time you look at a gun, you are apprehensive.” Even though the defendant did not have a gun, as an aider and abettor, he was responsible for all acts committed by his accomplice. Davis v. State, Fla.App.1973, 275 So. 2d 575. See State v. Roby, Fla.1971, 246 So. 2d 566.
Therefore, the elements of custody and fear being present, and supported in the record, the conviction and sentence are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Roby, 246 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1971)
- Matera v. State, 218 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Davis v. State, 275 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Gunter v. Gunter, 275 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)
- Ross v. State, 226 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)