GLENN DALE MAGYARI, 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.
Appellant's conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny was affirmed because the evidence sufficiently showed intent to steal property valued over $100, despite his actual possession of only $60 worth of groceries when intercepted.
The intent to steal property valued over $100 may be inferred from the circumstances of the burglary, including the quantity of goods being removed and the store's inventory, even if the defendant was interrupted before completing the theft.
[1] Intent to steal property of specified value in a burglary may be inferred from the defendant's conduct, the quantity of goods being removed, and the availability of prope…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 broke through a glass door at a grocery store and carried multiple armloads of groceries to his car. Police intercepted him while he was sti…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. He contends the evidence is insufficient to show that he intended to take property of the value of more than $100. Witnesses saw appellant carrying armloads of groceries from a grocery store to his automobile through a glass door he had broken, and they called the police. When intercepted by the police, appellant had carried eight or ten armloads to his car and was still in the process of loading his car with groceries. He threw the groceries he had at the time into his car and fled the scene. Appellant allegedly had only about $60 worth of groceries in his car at the time of his interception and he contends there is no evidence that he intended to take more than that amount.
The evidence shows that the inventory of the grocery store at the time was $8,000 to $10,000. Thus, there was property in the store valued at more than $100 at the time appellant was intercepted in the act of burglarizing it. The circumstances fully support the jury’s finding that appellant intended to take property of more than $100 value had he not been interrupted by a police officer. Rebjebian v. State, Fla., 44 So. 2d 81 (1949); Eaton v. State, Fla.App.(3d), 307 So. 2d 915.
Affirmed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. State, 341 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Nevertheless the particular circumstances of this case support the conclusion that Roberts intended to steal property of more than the value of $100. In both Rebjebian v. State, 44 So. 2d 81 (Fla.1949) and Magyari v. State, 317 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), the defendants entered structures in which property of more than the value of $100 was located and were apprehended before they had taken property in excess of $100. In both cases the defendants’ convictions for breaking and ent…
Authorities Cited
- Rebjebian v. State, 44 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1949)
- Eaton v. State, 307 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)