C. E. v. State, 76--307
| Decision Date | 15 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--307,76--307 |
| Parties | C. E., Jr., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Bartow, Wayne Chalu, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a delinquency adjudication predicated upon petit larceny.
Appellant and three others proceeded down the shopping aisles of Zayre's Department Store placing various items of merchandise in a shopping cart. The group was observed by a Zayre's security guard who saw them put the merchandise, consisting of wearing apparel, in large plastic garbage bags and then hide the bags under racks of clothing in the front of the store. The group then left the store.
The security staff at the store kept the bags under observation. About 45 minutes later, appellant and his companions returned. After going in and out of the store several times, the group was arrested by police outside of the store. It was determined that they had little or no money and no credit cards. The retail value of the merchandise was $479.
At trial, the judge denied the defense's motion for judgment of acquittal and found appellant guilty. Appellant argues that the state did not prove the requisite felonious intent at the time the goods were moved within the store. He also contends the movement of the merchandise within the store did not constitute asportation of the goods, a necessary element of the crime charged.
The intent with which an act is accomplished is an operation of the mind. Therefore, it is not always capable of direct and positive proof and may be presumed from the facts and circumstances surrounding the criminal episode. Board of Regents v. Videon, Fla.App.1st, 1975, 313 So.2d 433. In this case, the facts surely indicate an unlawful intent to deprive Zayre's of the merchandise. The clothes were placed in garbage bags and then hidden. There is no indication that the group intended to go through the check-out procedures and pay for them, since they were virtually penniless when apprehended. Under these circumstances, the finder of fact could properly conclude that appellant had the requisite intent.
The next issue is the asportation or carrying away of the merchandise. In Driggers v. State, 1928, 96 Fla. 232, 118 So. 20, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for larceny where the defendant had killed a cow and began to prepare the carcass for beef but had not moved it from the place where it had fallen when he was scared away. The court observed:
'It is generally held, however, that the asportation of the property or the carrying away of the same is completed by even the slightest removal of the thing stolen from its original position. . . .'
The appellant moved the merchandise in the store from its place of display to a garbage bag hidden under a clothes rack. This was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grant v. State
...State, 201 So.2d 599 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)). “The intent with which an act is accomplished is an operation of the mind.” C.E. v. State, 342 So.2d 979, 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). “Because direct evidence of intent is rare, and intent is usually proven through inference, ‘a trial court should rare......
-
Haslem v. State
...clothes within the garbage bags underneath a clothing rack, constituted sufficient proof of criminal intent to steal. C. E. v. State, 342 So.2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). In the Britto case, the defendant put paper towels and other items in a brown paper bag belonging to the store, but also pu......
-
Commonwealth v. Vickers
...States, 155 A.2d 73, 75 (D.C. 1959) (defendant removed items from shelf, put them in her purse, and closed it); C.E. v. State, 342 So. 2d 979, 980 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976) (defendant moved merchandise from its place of display to bag hidden under clothes Here, there was evidence that the ......
-
Dean v. State, 82-1135
...P. Lantz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. Before NESBITT, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. C.E., Jr. v. State, 342 So.2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); § 924.33, Fla.Stat. ...