FREDERICK N. MITCHELL, 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 evidence presented was sufficient to satisfy the ownership requirement for a conviction of breaking and entering.
The information alleged the dwelling was owned by James Caris. Jeffrey Caris, who lived at the dwelling his whole life, testified he was present durin…
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 Proof Of Ownership cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a misdemeanor therein, to wit: petit larceny, contrary of Fla.Stat. § 810.05 (1973). The information charged that the dwelling house was the property of James Caris. The allegation of ownership in a prosecution for breaking and entering is material and must be proved as laid. Smith v. State, 96 Fla. 30, 117 So. 377 (1928); Stewart v. State, 122 So. 2d 34 (2nd DCA Fla.1960). The only evidence which the State offered relative to this material allegation was the testimony of one Jeffrey Caris (who was in the dwelling at the time appellant committed the offense) to the effect that he lived in the house with his parents, brother, and sister, and that he lived there all of his life, seventeen years. This evidence is simply insufficient to prove the material allegation of ownership in James Caris, whose name was never mentioned and whose relationship, if any, to Jeffrey Caris was not shown by the record. It was error to deny appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to discharge appellant.
WALDEN, C. J., concurs.
MAGER, J., dissents, with opinion.
MAGER, Judge
(dissenting) :
I must respectfully dissent because it is my opinion the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the ownership requirement necessary to support a conviction for breaking and entering.
The issue presented does not concern itself with either a failure of the information to allege ownership or a variance between the ownership alleged and subsequently proven. Instead, the issue is the sufficiency of the proof of ownership tested by applicable judicial standards.
The information alleged that the dwelling house in question was the property of James Caris. The testimony presented at trial was that of Jeffrey Caris who testified that he was present at the time of the alleged breaking and entering incident and observed the defendant on the premises at that time. The said Jeffrey Caris further testified that he had lived at the dwelling house in question all his life (a period of seventeen years) with his parents, brother and sister. For some inexplicable and mystifying reason, the state chose not to present testimony from James Caris (the person named in the information as owner) in order to establish ownership of the dwelling in question, but instead sought to establish this element through the testimony of Jeffrey Caris. Even with this laxity on the part of the state, the allegations and proof of ownership were sufficient enough: (1) to establish that the dwelling was not that of the accused, (2) to protect the accused against a second prosecution for the same crime, (3) to avoid misleading or embarrassing the accused in the preparation of his defense. Hunt v. State, Fla.App.1967, 200 So. 2d 212.
Moreover, it cannot be said at the time of consideration of defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal that the evidence was not legally sufficient to prove ownership or that there was no evidence from which a jury could have resolved the issue of ownership adversely to defendant. 32 Fla.Jur., Trial, sections 92-100. See also Williams v. State, Fla.App.1975, 309 So. 2d 630; Clark v. State, Fla.App.1974, 293 So. 2d 768.
Measured by the standards set forth in Hunt v. State, supra, the defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal based upon insufficient evidence to support the allegation of ownership were properly denied. I would affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I. v. Anderson, 356 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ez v. State, 106 Fla. 361, 143 So. 303 (1932); Addison v. State, 95 Fla. 737, 116 So. 629 (1928); Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37, 40 So. 179 (1906); Pells v. State, 20 Fla. 774 (1884); State v. Ward, 354 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Mitchell v. State, 317 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Sifford v. State, 202 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Haines v. State, 113 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959). It is said that requiring such allegation and proof as thus particularized not only is essential to establishing the element…
-
Jeri Lee Haugland and Nils Richard Haugland v. State, 374 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ary prosecution constitutes “any possession which is rightful as against the burglar.” Addison v. State, 95 Fla. 737, 741, 116 So. 629, 630 (1928). Such ownership as thus defined, however, must be properly pled and proved as pled. Mitchell v. State, 317 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The state here incorrectly laid the ownership of the burglarized premises solely in the landlord fee-title owner when the proof at trial clearly established that such owner as pled was not in possession of such premises at…
-
Waterman v. State, 317 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…roven 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 strive to exert that degree of professional skill and diligence in the preparation of charges and the presentation of evidence in support thereof worthy o…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Roy Smith alias Tom Green v. State, 96 Fla. 30 (Fla. 1928)
- Hunt v. State, 200 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Stewart v. State, 122 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Bloneva Clark v. State, 293 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Tex Williams v. State, 309 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)