Dedge v. State
| Decision Date | 02 June 1937 |
| Citation | 174 So. 725,128 Fla. 343 |
| Parties | DEDGE v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Hillsborough County; W. Raleigh Petteway, Judge.
Gus R Dedge was convicted for breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, and he brings error.
Judgment reversed and new trial awarded.
COUNSEL Whitaker Brothers, of Tampa, for plaintiff in error.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Plaintiff in error was informed against for breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, to wit, grand larceny. He was tried and convicted and sentenced to serve ten years in the state penitentiary.
On writ of error to be relieved of the judgment so imposed, it is urged that incompetent or prejudicial evidence was permitted to go to the jury, that the evidence as a whole was insufficient to convict, and that the proof of identity was too weak and unsatisfactory to support the conviction.
The cause might be reversed on any or all three grounds. The proof of the identity of the defendant as the one who committed the alleged crime is far from meeting the requirements in such cases and the evidence as a whole reminds us of the story of the country doctor who was called to see a patient and as he entered the latter's bedroom observed a saddle under the bed. He diagnosed the case and told the patient that he found nothing wrong with him except that he had eaten a horse. The therapeutics applied in the instant case was about as skillful as that applied in the latter and the evidence of guilt on the part of defendant about as convincing as that showing that the patient ate a horse.
Having charged the defendant with intent to commit grand larceny, it was necessary to prove that he broke in the house and carried away or intended to carry away goods in the value of $50 or more, otherwise he should have been charged with a lesser offense.
It is shown that the house was broken into and some small articles and an ornamental sword taken from it at some time. The small articles were found nearby and the sword was never recovered but none of the small articles nor the sword were found on the defendant and there is no evidence that connects him with any of them. There is no evidence as to their value or the whereabouts of the sword or when it was taken. Defendant was arrested near the house...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, 48229
...that the special circumstances of custodial interrogation could affect the reliability of admissions by silence. Dedge v. State, 128 Fla. 343, 174 So. 725 (1937).26 See Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976); Jones v. State, 200 So.2d 574 (Fla.3d DCA 1967), Cited w......
-
Felkner v. State
...to take goods of that value or more if there is to be a conviction. Jalbert v. State, Fla., 95 So.2d 589, 592; 1 (see also Dedge v. State, 128, Fla. 343, 174 So. 725; and compare Rebjebian v. State, Fla., 44 So.2d 81); State v. Andrews, 246 N.C. 561, 99 S.E.2d 745, 749; 2 Duren v. State, 15......
-
Wright v. State
...it did not meet the tests set forth in Hall v . State, 90 Fla. 719, 107 So. 246; Frank v. State, 121 Fla. 53, 163 So. 223; Dedge v. State, 128 Fla. 343, 174 So. 725; Rivers v. State, 140 Fla. 487, 192 So. 190; Hubbard v. State, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 850; Davis v. State, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 629.......
-
Diaz v. State
...I think the ends of justice will best be served by granting a new trial. See Brown v. State, 98 Fla. 871, 124 So. 467; Dedge v. State, 128 Fl.a 343, 174 So. 725. THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., ...