Collingsworth v. State
| Decision Date | 11 June 1927 |
| Citation | 113 So. 561,93 Fla. 1110 |
| Parties | COLLINGSWORTH v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 5, 1927.
Error to Circuit Court, Okaloosa County; A. G. Campbell, Judge.
Albert Collingsworth was convicted of breaking and entering a store building with intent to steal, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Evidence referring to towns, familiar localities, or landmarks authorizing jury's conclusion offense was committed in county, held to sustain proof of venue. Where the evidence does not expressly locate a crime as having been committed in the county charged in the indictment, but there is in the evidence reference to towns, localities, or landmarks near the scene of the crime, known or probably familiar to the jury, and from which they may have reasonably concluded that the offense was committed in the county alleged, it is sufficient to sustain the verdict so far as proof of venue is concerned.
Evidence that M. occupied store to conduct mercantile business held sufficient to sustain allegation of ownership as the property of M. Plaintiff in error was indicted for breaking and entering, with intent to steal, a store building, the property of M. The evidence showed that M. had occupied the store with her merchandise and in the conduct of her mercantile business, and had closed it up the night of the breaking and entering. This was sufficient evidence to sustain the allegation as to ownership.
Proof of special or temporary ownership, such as lessee would have in store building, held sufficient to sustain allegation that lessee was owner. Proof of special or temporary ownership possession, or control, such as a lessee would have over the store or building in which the crime of breaking and entering with felonious intent was committed, is sufficient to sustain the allegation in an indictment that such lessee was the owner.
Accomplices are competent witnesses, and their uncorroborated evidence will sustain a conviction, if it satisfies jury of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. An accomplice is a competent witness, and his uncorroborated evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, if it satisfies the jury of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
COUNSEL Purl G. Adams, of Crestview, for plaintiff in error.
J. B Johnson, Atty. Gen., and H. E. Carter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Plaintiff in error was convicted of the offense of 'feloniously breaking and entering a certain building, to wit, a store building, the property of one Lucy Martin, with the intent then and there to steal, take, and carry away, money, goods and chattels' of the value of less than $50, and was sentenced to three years in the state prison. The only assignment of error insisted upon is based upon the denial of the motion for new trial. The first three grounds of the motion related to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and the fourth and fifth had specific reference to the proof of venue.
The only testimony on the question of venue was that of Lucy Martin, who testified that she ran a little shop or store about three-quarters of a mile from Laurel Hill. Then she was asked, 'It is in Okaloosa county, is it not?' to which she answered, 'Yes, sir; I reckon so, if Laurel Hill is in Okaloosa county.'
This was the store which the evidence showed had been broken into and entered on the night of December 11, 1926. In the case of Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439, 10 So. 819, it was held that, where the evidence does not expressly locate the crime as having been committed in the county charged in the indictment, but there are in the evidence references to various localities and landmarks which are near the scene of the crime, known by or probably familiar to the jury, and from which they may have reasonably concluded that the offense was committed in the county alleged, it is sufficient proof of venue. To like effect, see Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 184, 17 So. 559; McCune v. State, 42 Fla 192, 27 So. 867, 89 Am. St. Rep. 225. Venue in a criminal prosecution need not be proved beyond every reasonable doubt. Smith v. State, 29 Fla. 408, 10 So. 894...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. State, 77-213
...thereof. Cannon v. State, 102 Fla. 928, 136 So. 695 (1931); Dees v. State, 99 Fla. 1144, 128 So. 485 (1930); Collingsworth v. State, 93 Fla. 1110, 113 So. 561 (1927); Leslie v. State, 35 Fla. 171, 17 So. 555 (1895); Lindsey v. State, 184 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Holzapfel v. State, 120......
-
Pennick v. State
...(Fla.1980). However, unlike essential elements of the crime, venue need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, Collingsworth v. State, 93 Fla. 1110, 113 So. 561 (1927); Lowman v. State, 80 Fla. 18, 85 So. 166 (1920); Hopkins v. State, 52 Fla. 39, 42 So. 52 (1906); Smith v. State, 10 So. 8......
-
Addison v. State
...153; Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37, 40 So. 179; Potter v. State (Fla.) 109 So. 91; Burns v. State, 89 Fla. 494, 104 So. 783; Collingsworth v. State (Fla.) 113 So. 561; Stand. Encyc. Prac. 601. And as stated in section 137, vol. 3, Bishop's Crim. Prac.: 'The ownership of the building must be al......
-
Board of Public Instruction of Dade County v. Little River Val. Drainage Dist.
...119 So.2d 323 ... BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF DADE COUNTY, Florida, a body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Florida, Appellant, ... LITTLE RIVER VALLEY DRAINAGE DISTRICT; Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District; Atlantic Municipal ... ...