ROBERT LUTHER AND EDWARD HARTSFIELD, APPELLANTS,
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.
Luther and Hartsfield appealed their grand larceny conviction for stealing 127 boxes of oranges, arguing they should have been charged under a lesser trespass statute instead. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that grand larceny prosecution is proper when facts warrant it, regardless of whether a lesser trespass statute might also apply.
The appellants were properly charged with grand larceny. Section 821.12 is designed to punish the severing of fruit from the freehold as a trespass but was never intended to shield prosecution for larceny where facts warrant such prosecution.
“That section is designed to denounce and punish the severing of fruit and crops from the freehold as a trespass, but it was never intended to be used as a shield from prosecution for larceny where the facts warrant such prosecution.”
Establishes that the trespass statute does not preclude grand larceny prosecution when evidence supports it
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLuther and Hartsfield were convicted on an information charging grand larceny of 127 boxes of oranges. They did not challenge the sufficiency of the e…
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 Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
MATHEWS, Justice.
The appellants appealed from a conviction on an information charging grand larceny of 127 boxes of oranges. , f
The appellants claim they were not properly charged with the offense of grand larceny but should have been charged instead with the taking of fruitifrom a citrus grove. It is apparent that the contention is that the charge should have been brought under F. S. Section 821.12, F.S.A. This section relates to trespass and particularly to farms, gardens, orchards, orange or lemon groves, and makes it a crime for anyone to take and carry away from such property, or who destroys any farm products, vegetables, fruits or flowers, corn or cotton from the stalk, or from any vineyard any grapes of any money value, without the consent of the owner or manager, and provides for punishment not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding fifty dollars. This contention is without merit.
‘In the case of McKenna v. State, 119 Fla. 576, 161 So. 561, the defendknt’was found guilty of the larceny of forty boxes of grapefruit. The contention was made that he should have been prosecuted under F. S. Section 821.12, F.S.A. This Court said:
“ * * * That section is designed to denounce and punish the severing of fruit and crops from the freehold as a trespass, but it was never intended to be used as a shield from prosecution for larceny where the facts warrant such prosecution.”
There is no attack upon the sufficiency of the evidence. A mere reading of the record shows that the evidence warranted the prosecution and conviction for grand larceny. '
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, G. J./and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ„ concur.