WILLIE JAMES BURMAN, 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.
The court held that the exclusion of a crucial alibi witness, discovered the day before trial, necessitated a new trial to serve the ends of justice.
[1] A conviction for grand larceny may be reduced to petit larceny when the evidence is insufficient to prove the value of the stolen property exceeded the statutory threshol…
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by excluding a witness whose identity was only recently discovered and whose testimony is crucial to an issue in the case, absent a sh…
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 intelligenceAppellant was charged with grand larceny of two television sets, but the evidence only supported the theft of one. The trial court excluded a co-defen…
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 Ends Of Justice cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant and a co-defendant were charged in a single information with grand larceny in the theft of two television sets from a motel. Appellant was tried separately.
The evidence adduced at appellant’s trial was sufficient only to prove the theft by appellant and his cohort of one television set. Further, the evidence adduced as to the value of the set was wholly inadequate to cross the grand larceny threshold of one hundred dollars. Thus, were that the only problem presented we would remand the case to the trial court with directions to reduce the conviction to petit larceny and resentence appellant.
However, appellant maintained he was not present at the scene of the crime, and he proffered as a witness his co-defendant. The state objected to such witness since his name had not been listed on appellant’s witness list. No bad faith was suggested, because appellant only located the code-fendant the day before trial. In addition, the state of course knew that the co-defendant was involved in the case so there could not have been any surprise. Cf. Buttler v. State, Fla.App.1970, 238 So. 2d 313. Since identity was in issue the co-defendant’s corroboration could have been vital. Therefore, we think the ends of justice require a new trial, at which time the state will have the opportunity to present proper evidence of value and appellant will have the opportunity to have his alleged alibi corroborated.
In passing we would comment that we see all too many larceny cases with shody attempts at proving value. It would seem to us that if the state cannot adduce adequate proof of value over one hundred dollars it ought to reduce the charge and be done with it. Otherwise, that essen tial issue should be given more attention in the preparation of the cases for trial. On the proof of value in larceny prosecutions see cases cited at 20 Fla.Jur., Larceny, § 75, and Garland v. State, Fla.App.1974, 291 So. 2d 678.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waterman v. State, 317 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…reasing number of cases before this court in which a conviction has been reversed because the appellant, while obviously guilty of a crime, had not been proven guilty of the crime charged due to ineptness in prosecution. See, e. g., Burmam v. State, 316 So. 2d 300, 4th DCA Fla., opinion filed July 18, 1975; Stark v. State, 316 So. 2d 586, 4th DCA Fla., opinion filed July 18, 1975 ; Mitchell v. State, 317 So. 2d 465, 4th DCA Fla., 1975. Despite the tremendous increase in case load, prosecutors must constantly…
Authorities Cited
- Buttler v. State, 238 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Lecoster Garland v. State, 291 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)