Alvarez v. State
| Decision Date | 19 February 1918 |
| Citation | 78 So. 272,75 Fla. 286 |
| Parties | ALVAREZ v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Hillsborough County; W. S Graham, Judge.
Carlos Alvarez was convicted of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen, and he brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
An allegation, in an information charging the offense of receiving stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, that the property stolen was owned by a corporation giving its name and alleging that it was a corporation, is a sufficient allegation of ownership of the property stolen.
An information charging the defendant in one count with the offense of receiving stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, and in a second count charging him with being accessory before the fact to such offense, is not duplicitous.
The refusal of the court to order the state attorney to furnish the defendant with a bill of particulars in the prosecution of an information for receiving stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen will not be held to be erroneous, in the absence of anything in the record to show an abuse of discretion in such refusal.
In the trial of a criminal case, in which the defendant is charged with the offense of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen, the court should instruct the jury to find the value of the property stolen and received with that knowledge by the defendant, in case they should find the defendant guilty.
The admission of hearsay evidence which is prejudicial in character to the defendant is erroneous, and when properly objected to by him should be excluded from the jury.
COUNSEL Samuel Borchardt and Dickenson & Dickenson, all of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.
Van C Swearingen, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The plaintiff in error and one Wilbur Murrell were jointly informed against in the criminal court of record for Hillsborough county upon the charge of receiving, buying, and aiding in the concealing of stolen property knowing it to have been stolen.
The information contained two counts. The first charged Alvarez and Murrell jointly with the crime; the second charged Murrell as principal, and Alvarez as accessory before the fact.
The bill of exceptions indicates that the two men were jointly tried. The verdict found the 'defendant guilty as charged in the first count, also the second count as charged in the information.' Alvarez took a writ of error.
A motion to quash the information was made in behalf of Alvarez, which was overruled. The order was made the basis of the thirty-fifth assignment of error. It is treated first in the brief of counsel, so we will consider it in the same order.
The motion was based upon seven grounds, which in substance are as follows: Vagueness and indefiniteness; failure to charge any offense; duplicity; failure to designate the owner of the property alleged to have been stolen; duplicity in each count; failure to name the state under which the owner of the property, a corporation, was organized; and 'for other good and sufficient reasons.'
The first point argued by counsel is that the name of the state under which the corporation which owned the property stolen was organized is not given. The information alleges the ownership of the property to be in 'Crenshaw Bros. Produce Company, a corporation.'
The allegation of ownership is sufficient. There is nothing left to intendment. The owner is alleged to be a corporation. The cases cited by counsel for plaintiff in error support this view. In the case of State v. Clark, 223 Mo. 48, 122 S.W. 665, 18 Ann. Cas. 1120, the information which charged Clark with larceny laid the ownership of the goods stolen in a railroad company and failed to allege whether it was a partnership or corporation. It was held to be bad. The case is annotated in 18 Ann. Cas. 1120. The note states that there are two lines of cases--one holding that an indictment for larceny from a corporation should allege that the owner is a corporation; the other holding that it is sufficient to allege and prove the name by which it is generally known. White v. State, 24 Tex.App. 231, 5 S.W. 857, 5 Am. St. Rep. 879, holds that an indictment for larceny from a corporation should allege the fact of incorporation. The authorities in that case, Bishop's Criminal Procedure, Wharton's Criminal Law, and Archbold's Criminal Pleading, and Russell on Crimes, are cited in support of the rule.
In civil cases, because of the regulations imposed by statutes upon corporations of other states transacting business in the state of the forum, it may be necessary to definitely allege and prove the name of the state under which the corporation was organized but no such reason exists in a criminal case
This court has settled the point adversely to the contention of the plaintiff in error. The two cases cited by the Attorney General, Butler v. State, 35 Fla. 246, 17 So. 551, and Presley v. State, 61 Fla. 46, 54 So. 367, hold that an allegation of ownership as laid in this information is sufficient.
The information is not duplicitous. Neither count charges the defendant with two separate and distinct offenses. Two offenses are joined in the same information. One count charges the defendant as principal, and the other as accessory before the fact; but the information is not faulty for that reason. The two offenses charged were covered by the same transaction and were properly joined in the information. See 14 R. C. L. 198.
It is contended that the description of the property alleged to have been received as stolen property was not sufficiently described. The property was described as 'sixty dozen eggs, a further description being to the county solicitor unknown,' and 'sixty pounds of 'Pride of Wisconsin' cheese.' There is no merit in this point. It is a matter of common knowledge, although in these times that knowledge may rest in dim memories of a misty past, that cheese and eggs are articles of food. Although eggs may in some communities be bought and sold according to weight and valued inversely according to age, the county solicitor is not amenable to criticism as an indifferent pleader because he did not describe the eggs according to weight, age, and progenitorial distinction.
The refusal of the court to order the state to furnish the defendant with a bill of particulars was not error. The information fully informed the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The case is one in which no abuse of discretion in denying the motion has been shown. See Thomas v. State, 76 So. 780.
A motion in arrest of judgment was made and denied, and that ruling is made the basis of the thirty-seventh assignment of error.
Defendant's counsel also requested the court for an instruction directing the jury to find the value of the property stolen and received by the defendant, in the event they should find him guilty. The court refused the requested instruction, and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carnley v. Cochran, 158
...evidence takes on added importance in jury trials. It is excluded if prejudicial. Owens v. State, 65 Fla. 483, 62 So. 651; Alvarez v. State, 75 Fla. 286, 78 So. 272. But if admitted without objection, it is generally regarded as having been received by consent. Sims v. State, 59 Fla. 38, 52......
-
Farnell v. State, 67--91
...Prejudicial to the defendant over his objection is reversible error. Wolf v. State, 1917, 72 Fla. 572, 73 So. 740; Alvarez v. State, 1918, 75 Fla. 286, 78 So. 272; Watkins v. State, 1915, 69 Fla. 355, 68 So. In Hartman v. State, 1935, 121 Fla. 627, 164 So. 354, Judge Terrell wrote the opini......
-
Argeros v. State
... ... J. 319; People v. Jordan, 127 N.E ... 117; State v. Aldrick, 166 P. 1130; State v ... Leltan, 139 N.W. 475; State v. Diedtman, 190 P ... 117; Martin v. State, 89 So. 845; State v ... Harrison, 88 So. 696; People v. Todaro, 120 ... N.E. 135; People v. Hedge, 120 N.E. 494; Alvarez ... v. State, 78 So. 272; People v. Whittlock, 171 ... N.Y.S. 109; State v. Vaughan, 173 N.W. 1917; ... Callahan v. U. S. 240 F. 683.) as to the proof ... required to establish the existence of the Burlington ... Railroad Company as a de facto corporation we submit that a ... mere assumption ... ...
- Hicks v. State