VAWTER
v.
STATE
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for breaking and entering with intent to assault, holding that the statute applies to intent to commit offenses against persons, not just property.
The court held that the statute applies to breaking and entering with the intent to commit any misdemeanor, including an assault and battery, not just crimes against property.
“The gist of the crime is the intent entertained by the wrongdoer at the time of breaking and entering.”
Establishes the core element of the crime.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of breaking and entering the house of another with the intent to assault the occupant. He appealed, arguing that the infor…
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 A Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMAS, Justice.
The appellant was convicted of breaking and entering the house of another with intent to assault the occupant.'
He insists that his motion to quash the information should have been granted because no violation of Section 810.05, Florida Statutes 1951, and F.S.A., was charged. The relevant part of that law simply provides that anyone who “breaks and enters * * * with intent to commit a misdemeanor, shall be punished * * * The gist of the crime is the intent entertained by the wrongdoer at the time of breaking and entering. There are many misdemeanors which one breaking and entering could not have in mind for the simple reason that from their nature they could not be perpetrated within the place broken, but assault and battery is not one of them.
It is the appellant’s thought that the legislature meant to denounce only a crime against property and that, therefore, a person could not be convicted under the act unless at the time of breaking and entering he purposed to commit larceny. Certainly, had the law-making body intended the statute to cover this narrow field it would have accomplished the purpose by substituting “petit larceny” for “misdemeanor”.
We think one may, under the law, be found guilty of breaking and entering a building with intent to commit an offense against the person as well as against property ; that if he harbors an intent to assault and'batter he is as amenable as if he intend-;d to steal.
Affirmed.
HOBSON, C. J., and ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rozier v. State, 402 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…s or a dangerous weapon (section 810.02(2)(a) and (b)) or that the structure entered was a dwelling or there was a human being in the structure or conveyance at the time the offender entered or remained in it (section 810.02(3)). . Vawter v. State, 63 So. 2d 255 (Fla.1953); Charles v. State, 36 Fla. 691, 18 So. 369 (1895); Dowis v. State, 326 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Cole v. State, 276 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). . For similar reasoning relating to the word “knowingly,” see State v. Buffett, 397…
-
State v. Fields, 390 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…ended information states an essential element, but without requisite clarity. The intent to commit a crime within the structure has long been recognized as the “gist of the offense.” Charles v. State, 36 Fla. 691, 18 So. 369 (1895); Vawter v. State, 63 So. 2d 255 (Fla.1953); Cole v. State, 276 So. 2d 100 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). Yet, since at least 1876, it has also been held that: Where the definition of an offense, whether it be at common law or by statute, “includes generic terms, it is not sufficient that the…
-
Peters v. State, 76 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1954)…proof of these elements would become prima facie evidence of- entering with the intent to commit some misdemeanor “in the absence of proof of intent to commit any specific crime.” Cf. Charles v. State, 36 Fla. 691, 18 So. 369, Vawter v. State, Fla., 63 So. 2d 255. So to obtain a conviction, establishment of all three factors was indispensable; failure to prove one would be fatal to the state’s case. It was shown that the act occurred at night and that the place entered was the dwelling place of the prosecut…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence