Findley v. State
| Decision Date | 01 June 1936 |
| Citation | 168 So. 544,124 Fla. 447 |
| Parties | FINDLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Criminal Court of Record, Duval County; Wm. J. Porter Judge.
W. R Findley, alias Buck, alias Bill Findley, was convicted for breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
COUNSEL Carlton C. Arnow, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error.
Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This case is before us on writ of error to a judgment of conviction for breaking and entering a building with intent to commit a felony, rendered by the criminal court of record of Duval county. The information charged that the defendant did on May 10, 1935, in Duval county, Fla., 'feloniously break and enter a certain building towit: the storehouse of Whiddon Cash Stores, Inc., a corporation, then and there situate, with intent then and there to take and carry away the money, property, goods and chattels of another of the value of $50.00, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided,' etc. The defendant moved to quash the information because it did not identify the storehouse referred to, as Whiddon Cash Stores, Inc., was a large corporation owning numerous and sundry storehouses in Duval county, Fla., whereas the information did not allege the particular storehouse in question; and also upon the ground that the information did not allege the ownership of the money, property, goods, and chattels for which the defendant was charged with breaking and entering the building with intent to take and carry away. The information was evidently drawn under section 7217, Comp.Gen.Laws, which denounces the offense of breaking and entering any building other than a dwelling with intent to commit a felony; the preceding section having dealt with the breaking and entering of a dwelling house. The language of the statute is general in its nature, but it is well settled that the ownership of the building must be alleged in the indictment or information for the purpose of showing on the record that the building alleged to have been broken into was not the property of the accused, and also for the purpose of so identifying the offense as to protect the accused from a second prosecution for the same offense. Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37, 40 So. 179. The motion to quash was properly overruled, however, under the opinion of this court, in Rimes v. State, 36 Fla. 90, 18 So. 114. But the defendant also interposed a motion for bill of particulars which would require the state to give some description of the storehouse referred to therein which would identify it, such as the street and number. In this respect the bill of particulars should have been awarded in view of the fact that the corporation named in the information owned numerous stores in Duval county. We have held that, although the allegations of an indictment are in substantial conformity to the statute defining the crime and are sufficient to show the nature and cause of the accusation against the defendant as against a motion to quash, yet a bill of particulars should be awarded where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. State, 77-213
...the element of "ownership," but also protects the defendant from a second prosecution for the same offense. Findley v. State, 124 Fla. 447, 168 So. 544 (1936); Addison v. State, 95 Fla. 737, 116 So. 629 (1928); Davis v. State, 51 Fla. 37, 40 So. 179 (1906); Harper v. State, 169 So.2d 512 (F......
-
Peel v. State
...State's proof of the date of the crime differing from the date alleged in the information. In the third case, Findley v. State, 1936, 124 Fla. 447, 168 So. 544, the information charged the accused with burglary of a storehouse of a certain corporation, and it was held reversible error to de......
-
Norris v. State
...therewith. Weiss v. State, 124 So.2d 528 (Fla.App.); Griffin v. State, supra; Padgett v. State, 53 So.2d 106 (Fla.); Findley v. State, 124 Fla. 447, 168 So. 544; Suarez v. State, Where the evidence is offered to show a similar plan, scheme or design, the same must be shown in connection wit......
-
Liberty Leasing Co. v. Hillsum Sales Corporation, 23760.
...others had told him. His testimony comes squarely within the traditional hearsay rule to which Florida adheres, e. g., Findley v. State, 1936, 124 Fla. 447, 168 So. 544, and therefore runs counter to the provisions of Rule 56(e).2 The district court was, therefore, correct in refusing to gi......