ANTOINETTE BOHONOWSKY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE; JOHN M. KIBALO, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conspiracy To Commit A Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse appellant’s conviction of conspiracy to commit a felony, to-wit: grand larceny, and remand with instructions to enter a conviction of the lesser charge, conspiracy to commit a misdemean-or, to-wit: petit larceny. Garland v. State, 291 So. 2d 678 (4th DCA Fla.1974). The evidence presented at trial clearly proved that the value of the goods taken by appellants was less than $100. Generally, in such cases it has been said that the best evidence of a person’s intent to steal is what he did steal, White v. State, 274 So. 2d 6 (4th DCA Fla.1973); Rumph v. State, 248 So. 2d 526 (1st DCA Fla.1971). The evidence presented by the state does not exclude the reasonable hypothesis that appellants only intended to steal goods from the store with a value of less that $100.
The other points raised are without merit.
AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART and remanded.
WALDEN, CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kocol v. State, 546 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…less than 28 grams. Kocol argues that “even if it is assumed that a conspiracy was shown ... the proof only demonstrated conspiracy to deliver cocaine rather than traffic in cocaine.” In support of this argument Kocol relies on Bohonowsky v. State, 336 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). In that case the Fourth District reversed a conviction of conspiracy to commit grand larceny and reduced it to conspiracy to commit petit larceny on the basis that the proof adduced at trial proved the value of the goods taken w…
-
Spivey v. State, 731 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…amount of cocaine they intended to sell, there was nothing to overcome the binding presumption or inference that they intended — and therefore conspired — only to deliver the amount which was in fact “sold” to the officers. See Bohonowsky v. State, 336 So. 2d 478, 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)(“the best evidence of a person’s intent to steal is what he did steal”; conviction of conspiracy to commit grand larceny reduced to conspiracy to commit petit larceny because evidence showed value of goods taken was less the…
Authorities Cited
- Rumph v. State, 248 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- White v. State, 274 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Lecoster Garland v. State, 291 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)