Bailey v. State
| Decision Date | 13 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. I--250,I--250 |
| Citation | 199 So.2d 726 |
| Parties | Howard BAILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Virgil Q. Mayo, Public Defender, and W. L. Bailey, Bloutstown, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was charged and convicted of the crime of robbery. The incident giving rise to the crime charged occurred at a temporary fishing camp site at Ocheesee Landing, Calhoun County, Florida. The victim of the robbery was a resident of nearby Jackson County who had sojourned to the Ocheesee Landing area with his friend and a young ward to partake of the fishing which nature has so bountifully provided in that area.
There the victim and his companions had set up a fishing camp. It was at said fishing camp that an altercation occurred between the appellant and the victim which resulted in a pistol being taken at gunpoint by the appellant from the victim. The victim testified that he had never known or seen the appellant before at any time prior to the fracas here involved. Seemingly the appellant was an habitue of the area who was not unknown in the vicinity.
The essential contention of the appellant upon which his case is premised is that the evidence given at the trial was insufficient to sustain the guilty verdict because there was no evidence showing intent to permanently deprive the victim of the property which the appellant took from him at the time of the taking. He suggests that the only evidence introduced as to the taking was that it was done solely for the purpose of disarming the victim during the affray. Appellant's contention ignores the effect of the evidence that after what he now contends was only a temporary taking, he continued to possess the property taken for some six weeks; and it was not until the criminal charges were lodged against him that appellant sought to return the property to its owner.
We agree with appellant's contention that the animus furandi, that is, intent to steal, must be shown to have existed at the time of the taking. We cannot adopt his view, however, that the evidence presented to the jury failed to support the finding of the existence of such requisite intent.
The controlling principle as to the kind of evidence which is determined sufficient to prove the element of intent in a robbery case is found in 77 C.F.S. Robbery § 46d, where it is stated in material part as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. State, s. 69-644
...44; Stephens v. State, 1926, 92 Fla. 43, 109 So. 303; Montsdoca v. State, 1922, 84 Fla. 82, 93 So. 157; 27 A.L.R. 1291; Bailey v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 726; Hand v. State, Fla.1967, 199 So.2d 100; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d The same as to the felony of kidnapping, whic......
-
Cooper v. Wainwright
...consider the accused's conduct before, during and after the alleged attempt, along with any other relevant circumstances. Bailey v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 726. From the totality of circumstances in this case the jury could have reasonably concluded that appellant did intend to attem......
-
Bell v. State
...the owner of his property was an essential element of the offense. Montsdoca v. State, 84 Fla. 82, 93 So. 157 (1922); Bailey v. State, 199 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). However, in enacting Section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1975), the legislature omitted the word "felonious" thereby expand......
-
Bell v. State
...intent to steal. Montsdoca v. State, 84 Fla. 82, 93 So. 157 (1922); Stevens v. State, 265 So.2d 540 (Fla.2d DCA 1972); Bailey v. State, 199 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). In reaching its conclusion, the district court said, "The law is well established that it is within the power of the leg......