Brent v. State
| Decision Date | 06 April 1937 |
| Citation | 127 Fla. 626,173 So. 675 |
| Parties | BRENT v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Leon County; E. C. Love, Judge.
T. Y Brent was convicted of grand larceny, and he brings error.
Reversed.
COUNSEL Julius F. Parker, of Tallahassee, for plaintiff in error.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The case brings for review judgment of conviction on a charge of grand larceny.
The facts established by the record most strongly against the accused are that in January of 1936 accused was employed by Mrs. Mary I. Goodwin and Mrs. Mary A. Ellis as a salesman and general helper in the making and selling of insectides soaps, etc.
On January 24, 1936, R. H. Davidson was handling the products sold by Mrs. Goodwin and Mrs. Ellis under the firm name of Premier Products Company in the Quincy, Fla., territory and the accused then advised Mrs. Goodwin that Davidson wanted more merchandise and that he had arranged to work in Davidson's territory with Davidson for two days and that he would take the goods which Davidson wanted to Quincy and work with Davidson the two days in that territory. Seventy-four dollars worth of merchandise was prepared for transportation to Quincy, Mrs. Goodwin furnished her automobile and her nego driver to take Mr. Brent and the merchandise to Quincy. After arriving in Quincy, Brent stored the merchandise in Davidson's garage. The evidence is conflicting as to whether or not the merchandise was delivered to Davidson. Davidson contends that same was placed in his garage for storage and the convenience of Brent; that he, Davidson, did not receive the goods or have anything to do with same. Brent claims that he delivered this merchandise to Davidson. The negro driver brought Mrs. Goodwin's car back to Tallahassee; Brent remained in Quincy and worked that territory with Davidson two days. Then he came back to Tallahassee and two or three days later, at Mrs. Goodwin's suggestion, he made a trip to West Florida, Southern Alabama, and Southwest Georgia to sell the Premier Products Company's merchandise. The record shows that he took with him certain merchandise, stopped in Quincy and got the merchandise which he had ostensibly carried there for delivery to Davidson, with exception of one can of merchandise which he could not pack into the automobile and which by agreement was delivered to Davidson to be paid for by Davidson. He made the trip into Southern Alabama and Georgia with the understanding that he should pay his traveling expenses from collections made on sales of the products which he took with him.
On the 20th of February the accused returned from the sales trip and returned to Mrs. Goodwin merchandise of the value of $19. During the absence of the accused on the Alabama sales trip Mr. Davidson had visited the place of business of Premier Products Company and, finding that the $74 worth of merchandise had been charged to him, advised Mrs. Goodwin that he had not received this merchandise, but that same had merely been stored in his garage and that Mr. Brent had taken that merchandise, except the one can above referred to, with him on the Alabama trip. Thereupon Mrs. Goodwin credited Davidson's account with an amount equal to the value of the merchandise and charged same to Mr. Brent. When Brent returned and brought with him $19 worth of merchandise, he admitted that Davidson's statement of the matter was correct; that he had taken the merchandise, except the can referred to, on the trip to Alabama and had disposed of all the merchandise except the $19 worth in regular course of business. That his trip...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cordell v. State
... ... another, without his consent, by a person not entitled to the ... possession thereof, with the intent to deprive the owner of ... the property and to convert it to the use of the taker or to ... some person other than the owner. Brent v. State, ... 127 Fla. 626, 173 So. 675; Kemp v. State, 146 ... [25 So.2d 886] ... Fla. 101, 200 So. 368. It is essential, in ... order to sustain a conviction of larceny, that the evidence ... adduced by the State establishes beyond a reasonable doubt ... that the property was taken animo ... ...
-
Cohen v. State
...statutes. State v. Slaton, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 894 (statute prohibited illegal transmission of racing information) and Brent v. State, 1937, 127 Fla. 626, 173 So. 675 (larceny statute then in force). Also see State v. Diez, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 105, in which this Court held a statute requiring......
-
State v. Smith
...statute to impliedly require a charge and proof of scienter. As indicated above we so construed statutes in State v. Slaton, supra, Brent v. State, supra, and State v. Diez, supra. We have done so more recently in the case of Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Fla., 125 ......
-
Johnson v. State
...him of it permanently. A more elaborate definition will be found in Driggers v. State, 96 Fla. 232, 118 So. 20, quoted in Brent v. State, 127 Fla. 626, 173 So. 675. In a prosecution for breaking and entering it is incumbent on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant ......